|
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 September 04 2021 02:44 KwarK wrote:
The US isn't really in a position to exploit the resources of Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq. Iraq still had all the British oil infrastructure built to feed oil straight into the US dominated Persian Gulf. Afghanistan is a landlocked mountain with access through Iran or Pakistan. There was no future in which the US was extracting their resources, it was always going to be China or no-one at all.
There was the option of opening up Iran relations more, Obama started on that route. Trump removed it as a possibility though.
|
On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
Catholicism is not defined by being good people. The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. In the Bible. Trying to define Christian behavior by taking one aspect of the Bible and ignoring the rest is precisely what they are doing as well, just in another way. Christianity is an umbrella term for people that believe in similar things. Some of them behave in a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing that, some because that's the right way to do and some because the preacher or their parents said this is the way to behave. Others simply ignore the part that they don't feel particularly about or do bad things and hating themselves for it. Us judging them doesn't change that.
But defining Christianity just by the general tenants of being a good person from the teachings attributed to Jesus is like saying if you own a car, you must be a muscle car enthusiast. The teachings of Jesus about being a good person are jsut that, general ground rules of being a good human being. They might have been more controversial back in their time, but today not hating on your neighbour is a quite ordinary thing to ask. If this believe in itself is what defines being a christian, an atheist living a social life might be considered a Christian. What defines a christian is that they belief god is real and his rules are shaping the world and should also shape the behaviour of people. Whether they are hateful bigoted people or tolerant inclusive ones doesn't really matter. That we can logically poke holes in their beliefs because they completely ignore some parts of their holy scripture and tradition is one thing, but it does not change the fact that a horribl Karen might be as christian as the most chill social worker.
That may be true of Catholicism but the US is primarily Protestant (~40% vs ~20% of the population). I think there is greater emphasis here on being Christian means you are morally good. Like with many things American people are far more interested in personality and identity than any coherent doctrine or systems of ideas.
|
United States43598 Posts
On September 04 2021 02:50 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 02:44 KwarK wrote:
The US isn't really in a position to exploit the resources of Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq. Iraq still had all the British oil infrastructure built to feed oil straight into the US dominated Persian Gulf. Afghanistan is a landlocked mountain with access through Iran or Pakistan. There was no future in which the US was extracting their resources, it was always going to be China or no-one at all. There was the option of opening up Iran relations more, Obama started on that route. Trump removed it as a possibility though.
Iran was part of the US led coalition that first invaded Afghanistan before Bush put them on his to-do list. There's literally no reason for Iran to be a US adversary beyond vague memories of the revolution fallout and being bitchy on behalf of Saudi Arabia because for some reason the US has a side in the Sunni/Shia disagreement. It's crazy that US foreign policy re: Iran is largely influenced by a lot of Iranians thinking Muhammed's son-in-law should have succeeded him.
|
On September 04 2021 02:44 KwarK wrote:
The US isn't really in a position to exploit the resources of Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq. Iraq still had all the British oil infrastructure built to feed oil straight into the US dominated Persian Gulf. Afghanistan is a landlocked mountain with access through Iran or Pakistan. There was no future in which the US was extracting their resources, it was always going to be China or no-one at all.
I don't understand the situation well enough to argue, so I will just assume this is accurate unless someone makes a compelling case why it isn't.
|
On September 04 2021 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 02:50 Yurie wrote:On September 04 2021 02:44 KwarK wrote:
The US isn't really in a position to exploit the resources of Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq. Iraq still had all the British oil infrastructure built to feed oil straight into the US dominated Persian Gulf. Afghanistan is a landlocked mountain with access through Iran or Pakistan. There was no future in which the US was extracting their resources, it was always going to be China or no-one at all. There was the option of opening up Iran relations more, Obama started on that route. Trump removed it as a possibility though. Iran was part of the US led coalition that first invaded Afghanistan before Bush put them on his to-do list. There's literally no reason for Iran to be a US adversary beyond vague memories of the revolution fallout and being bitchy on behalf of Saudi Arabia because for some reason the US has a side in the Sunni/Shia disagreement. It's crazy that US foreign policy re: Iran is largely influenced by a lot of Iranians thinking Muhammed's son-in-law should have succeeded him.
I thought that the US was mostly antagonistic to Iran because of Israel? I don't get it either because it seems like every terrorist organization that has seriously threatened Americans has been Sunni.
|
On September 04 2021 02:57 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
Catholicism is not defined by being good people. The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. In the Bible. Trying to define Christian behavior by taking one aspect of the Bible and ignoring the rest is precisely what they are doing as well, just in another way. Christianity is an umbrella term for people that believe in similar things. Some of them behave in a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing that, some because that's the right way to do and some because the preacher or their parents said this is the way to behave. Others simply ignore the part that they don't feel particularly about or do bad things and hating themselves for it. Us judging them doesn't change that.
But defining Christianity just by the general tenants of being a good person from the teachings attributed to Jesus is like saying if you own a car, you must be a muscle car enthusiast. The teachings of Jesus about being a good person are jsut that, general ground rules of being a good human being. They might have been more controversial back in their time, but today not hating on your neighbour is a quite ordinary thing to ask. If this believe in itself is what defines being a christian, an atheist living a social life might be considered a Christian. What defines a christian is that they belief god is real and his rules are shaping the world and should also shape the behaviour of people. Whether they are hateful bigoted people or tolerant inclusive ones doesn't really matter. That we can logically poke holes in their beliefs because they completely ignore some parts of their holy scripture and tradition is one thing, but it does not change the fact that a horribl Karen might be as christian as the most chill social worker. That may be true of Catholicism but the US is primarily Protestant (~40% vs ~20% of the population). I think there is greater emphasis here on being Christian means you are morally good. Like with many things American people are far more interested in personality and identity than any coherent doctrine or systems of ideas.
I would disagree a lot with the notion that being protestant is an indicator for more moral behavior. Sure, protestants for some reason can just decide to ignore the old testament and the mainstream protestant churches have been more open to change, but the evangelical churches are much more extreme on the fringes, precisely because they are not part of a big monolithic Organisation that hasn't changed much for a thousand years. The fact remains, being a good person does not make you Christian, believing in your brand of Christianity does.
|
On September 04 2021 03:49 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 02:57 Starlightsun wrote:On September 03 2021 19:44 Broetchenholer wrote:
Catholicism is not defined by being good people. The Jesus you identify from the Bible has said some very bad things. In the Bible. Trying to define Christian behavior by taking one aspect of the Bible and ignoring the rest is precisely what they are doing as well, just in another way. Christianity is an umbrella term for people that believe in similar things. Some of them behave in a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences of not doing that, some because that's the right way to do and some because the preacher or their parents said this is the way to behave. Others simply ignore the part that they don't feel particularly about or do bad things and hating themselves for it. Us judging them doesn't change that.
But defining Christianity just by the general tenants of being a good person from the teachings attributed to Jesus is like saying if you own a car, you must be a muscle car enthusiast. The teachings of Jesus about being a good person are jsut that, general ground rules of being a good human being. They might have been more controversial back in their time, but today not hating on your neighbour is a quite ordinary thing to ask. If this believe in itself is what defines being a christian, an atheist living a social life might be considered a Christian. What defines a christian is that they belief god is real and his rules are shaping the world and should also shape the behaviour of people. Whether they are hateful bigoted people or tolerant inclusive ones doesn't really matter. That we can logically poke holes in their beliefs because they completely ignore some parts of their holy scripture and tradition is one thing, but it does not change the fact that a horribl Karen might be as christian as the most chill social worker. That may be true of Catholicism but the US is primarily Protestant (~40% vs ~20% of the population). I think there is greater emphasis here on being Christian means you are morally good. Like with many things American people are far more interested in personality and identity than any coherent doctrine or systems of ideas. I would disagree a lot with the notion that being protestant is an indicator for more moral behavior. Sure, protestants for some reason can just decide to ignore the old testament and the mainstream protestant churches have been more open to change, but the evangelical churches are much more extreme on the fringes, precisely because they are not part of a big monolithic Organisation that hasn't changed much for a thousand years. The fact remains, being a good person does not make you Christian, believing in your brand of Christianity does.
Oh yes I don't mean to say that they are more moral in practice, just that they perceive it that way. I think a lot Christians here simply see Jesus as a paragon of good, and believe they have a personal relationship with him like he is their mentor.
|
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path.
|
On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path.
Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much.
|
I don’t know what “fighting” vs. “not fighting” the Texas abortion bill means for Dems. It’s already enacted, SCOTUS already refused to throw it out pre-enforcement, now we’ll get post-enforcement litigation and we’ll just have to see what that looks like.
If “fighting” means yelling about it a lot, I think it’s pretty obviously a thing worth yelling about. It’s obviously both morally and constitutionally horrific. A justice system based on litigation bounties is plainly abusable, and makes no pretense of satisfying anybody’s idea of rule of law; not that our current justice system is ideal, obviously, but this is more reminiscent of old Roman prescription lists than anything from the modern era. Constitutionally, the apparent precedent is that any state can strip citizens of constitutional rights without fear of judicial review, so long as the enforcement mechanism is sufficiently convoluted and arbitrary. CA can ban all guns, AL can ban Islam, etc. and courts would, apparently, be powerless (at least until after enforcement actually began and a bunch of people’s rights had already been restricted). I’m not actually clear on whether Missouri’s 1838 Extermination Order against Mormons would be illegal by this precedent.
Whether there’s political advantage in yelling about it, I don’t know. Traditionally pro-choice has a bit more support than pro-life, but the pro-life folks are so much more focused on the issue that Republicans win votes by being extremely pro-life while Democrats don’t really win any by being pro-choice. That seems likely to change if significant numbers of people are living under abortion bounty regimes and can get trolled with lawsuits even if they don’t have an abortion.
I guess I care less about those sorts of PR strategy conversations. The play-by-play of politicians devising messaging to dupe voters could maybe be an interesting strategy game to follow if the stakes weren’t so high, but as it is, it feels important to focus on truth rather than marketing. Maybe I just prefer to avoid PR talk because I don’t think I have any answers to the obvious questions?
|
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
On September 04 2021 07:21 ChristianS wrote:I don’t know what “fighting” vs. “not fighting” the Texas abortion bill means for Dems. It’s already enacted, SCOTUS already refused to throw it out pre-enforcement, now we’ll get post-enforcement litigation and we’ll just have to see what that looks like. If “fighting” means yelling about it a lot, I think it’s pretty obviously a thing worth yelling about. It’s obviously both morally and constitutionally horrific. A justice system based on litigation bounties is plainly abusable, and makes no pretense of satisfying anybody’s idea of rule of law; not that our current justice system is ideal, obviously, but this is more reminiscent of old Roman prescription lists than anything from the modern era. Constitutionally, the apparent precedent is that any state can strip citizens of constitutional rights without fear of judicial review, so long as the enforcement mechanism is sufficiently convoluted and arbitrary. CA can ban all guns, AL can ban Islam, etc. and courts would, apparently, be powerless (at least until after enforcement actually began and a bunch of people’s rights had already been restricted). I’m not actually clear on whether Missouri’s 1838 Extermination Order against Mormons would be illegal by this precedent. Whether there’s political advantage in yelling about it, I don’t know. Traditionally pro-choice has a bit more support than pro-life, but the pro-life folks are so much more focused on the issue that Republicans win votes by being extremely pro-life while Democrats don’t really win any by being pro-choice. That seems likely to change if significant numbers of people are living under abortion bounty regimes and can get trolled with lawsuits even if they don’t have an abortion. I guess I care less about those sorts of PR strategy conversations. The play-by-play of politicians devising messaging to dupe voters could maybe be an interesting strategy game to follow if the stakes weren’t so high, but as it is, it feels important to focus on truth rather than marketing. Maybe I just prefer to avoid PR talk because I don’t think I have any answers to the obvious questions?
I’m unsure of the political optics in general or pushing one way or another are on this.
The whole bounty component specifically though? As I said I don’t know, perhaps because it involves abortion people will give it a pass but it seems profoundly (and fuck me I hate invoking the phrase) un-American.
On a purely practical sense it also seems so open to malicious exploitation too.
|
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights"
|
On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights"
There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas.
|
United States24754 Posts
On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas.
I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience.
|
On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience.
I'm a strong believer in the idea that humans are only humans once they possess consciousness. I am kind of on the fringe when it comes to abortion rights. However, I look at Trump winning in 2016 and I think "And yet, there are bigger issues at play, as crazy as that sounds". I don't have the luxury of pretending Democrats can stick to their guns and make plays based on ethics. Not with a country with as wretched of a culture as our own. We are a broken, awful people. Remaining principled regarding abortion so close to the midterms is a conscious decision to walk off a cliff. Nothing more.
|
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
On September 04 2021 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I'm a strong believer in the idea that humans are only humans once they possess consciousness. I am kind of on the fringe when it comes to abortion rights. However, I look at Trump winning in 2016 and I think "And yet, there are bigger issues at play, as crazy as that sounds". I don't have the luxury of pretending Democrats can stick to their guns and make plays based on ethics. Not with a country with as wretched of a culture as our own. We are a broken, awful people. Remaining principled regarding abortion so close to the midterms is a conscious decision to walk off a cliff. Nothing more.
Is it?
If not the totality of it, although ideally so, if the Dems aren’t going to bat against incentivising citizens to tout on women for getting abortions, I mean what will they go to bat for?
Part of pragmatism is well, being genuinely pragmatic. It seems to in modern parlance be used as a synonym for comprosiming, or restricting one’s ambition.
If the Dems just cede everything what is the point? People who actually want what the GOP are selling more flagrantly will just go with that, you’ll get some ‘lesser evil’ votes in and you’ll have some people who concerned with ethical stands swallowing their nose, and probably a fair few just not bothering to turn out.
If it’s on a battleground you can’t win anyway, do you really politically lose for fighting anyway and showing you’re principled when it comes to other battlegrounds nationally?
If it’s an issue that’s actually in play and swings either way, well it’s in play so give it a crack.
The GOP manage to make progress on their agenda on issues that are 50/50 or not even especially popular, all the time. The Dems are frequently unwilling to counter on the 50/50 issues and often don’t even push the stuff on their ostensible that is actually popular and then their well remunerated strategists hand wring with every election they lose.
|
On September 04 2021 09:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I'm a strong believer in the idea that humans are only humans once they possess consciousness. I am kind of on the fringe when it comes to abortion rights. However, I look at Trump winning in 2016 and I think "And yet, there are bigger issues at play, as crazy as that sounds". I don't have the luxury of pretending Democrats can stick to their guns and make plays based on ethics. Not with a country with as wretched of a culture as our own. We are a broken, awful people. Remaining principled regarding abortion so close to the midterms is a conscious decision to walk off a cliff. Nothing more. Is it? If not the totality of it, although ideally so, if the Dems aren’t going to bat against incentivising citizens to tout on women for getting abortions, I mean what will they go to bat for? Part of pragmatism is well, being genuinely pragmatic. It seems to in modern parlance be used as a synonym for comprosiming, or restricting one’s ambition. If the Dems just cede everything what is the point? People who actually want what the GOP are selling more flagrantly will just go with that, you’ll get some ‘lesser evil’ votes in and you’ll have some people who concerned with ethical stands swallowing their nose, and probably a fair few just not bothering to turn out. If it’s on a battleground you can’t win anyway, do you really politically lose for fighting anyway and showing you’re principled when it comes to other battlegrounds nationally? If it’s an issue that’s actually in play and swings either way, well it’s in play so give it a crack. The GOP manage to make progress on their agenda on issues that are 50/50 or not even especially popular, all the time. The Dems are frequently unwilling to counter on the 50/50 issues and often don’t even push the stuff on their ostensible that is actually popular and then their well remunerated strategists hand wring with every election they lose.
Dems shouldn't and don't cede everything. We only have a 5 day work week because of aggression against conservatism. There are a lot of battles that democrats can win, such as healthcare, infrastructure and child credits. But abortion ain't one of them.
|
On September 04 2021 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
I'm a guy who calls dems gutless cowards as much as anyone but man if they've ever gotten a signal to fight about something its now and its the texan abortion bill. The politics make sense the demographics make sense Biden is up against the ropes over afganistan and the activities of his party are screaming out for it.
And believe me as bad as the stories you tell about Christians they are nothing compared to the stories Christians can tell about other Christians. I don't want to talk about that I've been disappointed too much in my path. Abortion and immigration will always be losing topics for democrats. I don't think they can do much.
What do you mean? More Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life (or in some rare cases, it's basically a split, but never a significantly lower percentage for pro-choice):
1. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/447398-more-than-half-of-americans-identify-as-pro-choice-poll
2. https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/
3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
As far as Christianity goes, all of it is cherry-picked. Some Christians will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-life, but others will say that their religious faith is why they're pro-choice. Same goes with being for vs. against certain immigration policies.
|
On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience.
I have to agree with this, part of why I dont like Democrats is that I perceive them as more interested in doing whats popular than doing whats right and there is such a clear right here I dont think they have a good excuse to turn away from it.
Not to mention the general Democrat "wisdom" of being inoffensive as possible without standing for much has hardly been a strong electoral strategy anyways.
|
On September 04 2021 12:40 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2021 09:06 micronesia wrote:On September 04 2021 09:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 04 2021 08:55 Sermokala wrote:
The bounty part is whats really extra and could be used really effectively I think. "Texas has put a bounty on your rights" There is a reason Democrats don't touch abortion with a 10 meter pole during a presidential election. It is not a winning topic nationally. Midterms coming up. Better to just let Texas be a shit hole have activists get pissed instead of the party. I really just don't think the party as a whole benefits nationally from vilifying Texas. I would hope the Democrats don't decide whether or not to take action against freedom destroying terror solely based on how it will affect the upcoming election... that's more of a republican thing in my experience. I have to agree with this, part of why I dont like Democrats is that I perceive them as more interested in doing whats popular than doing whats right and there is such a clear right here I dont think they have a good excuse to turn away from it. Not to mention the general Democrat "wisdom" of being inoffensive as possible without standing for much has hardly been a strong electoral strategy anyways.
I'm reasonably convinced Democrats losing in 2022 because they failed to protect their voters access to voting would not be enough for most Democrats to recognize this issue.
Optimistically I could see this radicalizing some people that'd sooner break the law than follow one so obscene.
If you voted for Democrats only to lose access to your bodily autonomy and/or voting access and Democrats solution is for you to vote for them again, it becomes increasingly irrational to look to them for practical solutions.
You want to stop a fascist abortion bounty site? "learn 2 code" is a less obnoxiously oblivious response than "vote" nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
