|
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 November 13 2021 05:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My understanding is - and my wife's PhD is specifically on this very subject - anger isn't really that good of a populist tool for social media engagement. Enthusiasm is. I agree that Biden's message lacks the enthusiasm you want to evoke, but anger isn't one of the emotions that really creates engagement. It can push people away from the others - but it doesn't bring the people to you.
That is great to know, actually
|
On November 13 2021 03:31 Mohdoo wrote:
I want him to be someone who people can actually connect with and I want him to legitimately get people fired up. Biden needs to get more people more angry. There are a lot of things to be angry about. Anger brings change.
Here's president Mohdoo's Facebook post:
The senate is a logistical and moral failure. Every senator who is choosing not to vote for this world changing, life saving bill has blood on their hands. People are dying, schools are failing and parents are struggling while rich, entitled, disconnected senators wonder if you really deserve relief from the oppressive class warfare of billionaires. The senate is choosing billionaires over each and every one of you. There is ZERO moral reason to oppose this bill.
People will get mad if you help them get mad. Trump built a movement through anger. Biden tries to calm people down and prevent anyone from getting emotional. There are things WORTH getting emotional about. This sipping tea perspective is wildly inappropriate.
He should use TONS of immature hyperbole because it MOVES things along. It is *necessary* in order to move the country forward.
Alienate suburban women like Trump with over the top rhetoric, alienate working class white/hispanic men like Biden did with unpopular policies! A recipe for success for sure.
|
Fixing america's infrastructure is very popular though.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Not sure if you could call this an infrastructure bill - all the stuff on roads, bridges, rail, etc., was in the bill that already passed. It's more of a "Democratic Party priorities grab bag" bill, focusing on healthcare, subsidies for ostensibly-green energy, childcare, education, and immigration.
It polled well two months ago according to Pelosi's numbers, true, but certainly well below 80%. I bet the numbers would be worse now. And it seems a lot of people don't know what's in the bill - no surprise when it keeps changing.
|
On November 13 2021 06:39 Erasme wrote:
Fixing america's infrastructure is very popular though.
Sure, but that isn't really what BBB is, nor is it a high-energy issue. For something to motivate the polus it needs to be both popular and important. Low gas prices are popular and important. Repairing infrastructure is popular, but not on the people's minds. I remember after the 2009 stimulus there were a lot of projects that were branded like "brought to you buy the XX act!" Nobody was really excited their crappy old train stop now was a slightly less crappy looking, but still stinks like piss train stop.
See, for example: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/08/13/important-issues-in-the-2020-election/
Economy, healthcare, SCOTUS, corona
This year top issues are:
Economy, Education, Taxes, Corona
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2021/exit-polls-virginia-governor/
|
To me a fundamental problem for Democrats is they are trying to argue against a core tenet of capitalism without acknowledging it undermines the rationale for capitalism as it is understood in the US altogether.
They are essentially arguing that the "rational and narrowly self-interested, who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally." don't actually have a invisible hand to "bind self-interest, along with public interest, so that individuals who pursue their own interests will inevitably benefit society as a whole".
Instead they argue they should be the very visible hand doing that despite how that is incompatible with capitalism as it is known in the US, where government intervention is the antithesis of a most essential component of capitalism, the "free market".
|
|
|
On November 13 2021 05:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2021 05:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My understanding is - and my wife's PhD is specifically on this very subject - anger isn't really that good of a populist tool for social media engagement. Enthusiasm is. I agree that Biden's message lacks the enthusiasm you want to evoke, but anger isn't one of the emotions that really creates engagement. It can push people away from the others - but it doesn't bring the people to you. However we want to label it, Trump is extremely good at something that Biden and democrats as a whole would benefit enormously from. They need to be doing whatever that is.
I find this mindset of politics as a competition among groups to gain power deeply unsettling. The most troubling part of it is that it's true.
I think there's a spectrum of cooperation-competition we can achieve but it's a bit of an arms race to employ tactics that benefit one side while harming the other. If both sides commit to an arms race, the weapons will only get more and more powerful. We have laws to prevent the most terrible acts but the limits of social acceptance largely dictate how politicians are allowed to act. Laws can remain rigid but I have no idea what will become socially acceptable in the future, especially if we go down this path.
|
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On November 13 2021 13:05 PaxViaAtomi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2021 05:49 Mohdoo wrote:On November 13 2021 05:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My understanding is - and my wife's PhD is specifically on this very subject - anger isn't really that good of a populist tool for social media engagement. Enthusiasm is. I agree that Biden's message lacks the enthusiasm you want to evoke, but anger isn't one of the emotions that really creates engagement. It can push people away from the others - but it doesn't bring the people to you. However we want to label it, Trump is extremely good at something that Biden and democrats as a whole would benefit enormously from. They need to be doing whatever that is. I find this mindset of politics as a competition among groups to gain power deeply unsettling. The most troubling part of it is that it's true. I think there's a spectrum of cooperation-competition we can achieve but it's a bit of an arms race to employ tactics that benefit one side while harming the other. If both sides commit to an arms race, the weapons will only get more and more powerful. We have laws to prevent the most terrible acts but the limits of social acceptance largely dictate how politicians are allowed to act. Laws can remain rigid but I have no idea what will become socially acceptable in the future, especially if we go down this path.
I’m not sure it is actually true.
I share your concerns though. I don’t think the ostensible left can ape the exact tactics of a Trump, because I think the left want tangible policies that are well thought out and impactful, they’re not satiated by the same grandstanding and well, essentially nothing that we’ve seen from Trumpian grandstanding
That Trumpian core are able to stomach well, whatever so long as the perception that their core gripes are being dealt with. Often very emotionally fuelled gripes.
The left want stuff done, pretty specific stuff done. I cannot speak for the whole left, but what aspects I have familiarity with, gestures and some ‘culture wars’ wins would perhaps be icing on the cake, but people want the cake of meaningful reforms first. Trumpists can subsist entirely on the icing.
There is an analogue with the U.K., the people who wanted Brexit, well stuff that plays well with ‘get Brexit done’ is enough to keep them happy, even with shitloads of evidence that it’s not exactly a positive thing. The messaging has worked pretty well there.
This is not to say they won’t try to do it, and we do go down grandstanding, arms race, awful territory.
Regardless, I think you’re a relatively new participant to this long thread and welcome, I’ve enjoyed all of your posts thus far and hope you make many more!
|
United States41984 Posts
15 days before Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to a protest with an AR-15 and killed two people he recorded himself watching people at a CVS and said that he wished he had his AR-15 with him so that he could kill the people at the CVS because they were shoplifters. That's the same AR-15 he subsequently took with him to a place where he hoped he could find looters.
The jury can't be shown the video though because Kyle's own statement of intent to shoot people with his AR-15 doesn't have any bearing on whether his intention when traveling there that day was to shoot people with his AR-15.
The prosecution has a fucking recorded video confession and it just doesn't matter. He’s allowed to go on the stand and insist he was there with his gun to keep people safe, no hint of the wannabe mass shooter who said Bro, I wish I had my f—ing AR. I'd start shooting rounds at them just two weeks earlier.
|
The judge made up his mind before the trial started. We have a high quality "justice" system in the US.
|
On November 14 2021 00:53 KwarK wrote:15 days before Kyle Rittenhouse traveled to a protest with an AR-15 and killed two people he recorded himself watching people at a CVS and said that he wished he had his AR-15 with him so that he could kill the people at the CVS because they were shoplifters. That's the same AR-15 he subsequently took with him to a place where he hoped he could find looters. The jury can't be shown the video though because Kyle's own statement of intent to shoot people with his AR-15 doesn't have any bearing on whether his intention when traveling there that day was to shoot people with his AR-15. The prosecution has a fucking recorded video confession and it just doesn't matter. He’s allowed to go on the stand and insist he was there with his gun to keep people safe, no hint of the wannabe mass shooter who said just two weeks earlier. Is there no ability in the US system to challenge a judge's impartiality?
In Dutch law you can argue that a judge is not acting impartial and a separate court of 3 judges decides whether or not that is the case and if found to be true the judge will be removed from the case.
|
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
Even being on the generous side of things here, where Rittenhouse was being hyperbolic and venting, as opposed to say genuinely expressing intent, how is that not relevant to the case? :S
I can’t recall the case off hand, perhaps the Daniel Schiver [sic] shooting, where the cop’s gun had all sorts of violent power fantasy adornments to it, but apparently was not something the jury were able to see.
I will add I haven’t actually seen that footage. Nor am I a lawyer, but it does seem baffling to me as a layman that such things aren’t deemed as admissible evidence.
|
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty.
|
On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty.
Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred.
|
On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred.
Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha?
You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US.
|
On November 14 2021 04:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred. Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha? You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US. This isnt a previous crime being used as evidence in a previous crime. He shot people, that is not up for dispute. The question is if he acted in self defence or not, from what I understand.
I think statements of "I want to shoot people" provide an underlying basis about motive when that person later goes out and finds people to shoot.
As a laymen it certainly adds important information about why he might have been out after curfew with a deadly weapon during a riot.
|
On November 14 2021 04:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred. Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha? You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US.
If you say you you wish you could shoot people and then a week later you go out and shoot people, that should be evidence that you intended violence and were NOT going there to defend people. Lets say that instead of a video they had a witness who was in that conversation and they brought in the witness as a character witness as to whether Kyle Rittenhouse was intending violence, and that person said "yes", "based on what", "based on that 2 weeks ago he was sincerely wishing he had his gun so he could shoot people". Should that witness record be stricken? If not, why is the video not equally relevant? And if not, then how are you supposed to EVER prove intent?
|
On November 14 2021 04:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred. Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha? You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US. This isnt a previous crime being used as evidence in a previous crime. He shot people, that is not up for dispute. The question is if he acted in self defence or not, from what I understand.
This is correct.
On November 14 2021 04:42 Gorsameth wrote:
I think statements of "I want to shoot people" provide an underlying basis about motive when that person later goes out and finds people to shoot.
As a laymen it certainly adds important information about why he might have been out after curfew with a deadly weapon during a riot.
It was illegal for him to carry the firearm over state lines, but that doesn't mean it wasn't self defense. This is where the layman gets lost in this case and the reason Kyle is going to be acquitted.
On November 14 2021 04:46 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2021 04:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 14 2021 04:06 Yurie wrote:On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty. Isn't this more the case of just before committing a crime you say you will do it. Thus putting up motive for doing it? Not relevant to if you are innocent or not but changes the reason the action occurred. Let us say that we are in an alternate universe where Kyle shot up that CVS and killed people. Do you think that means he is also guilty in Kenosha? You can't use the argument that person previously committed this crime so they did it again in a criminal case in the US. If you say you you wish you could shoot people and then a week later you go out and shoot people, that should be evidence that you intended violence and were NOT going there to defend people. Lets say that instead of a video they had a witness who was in that conversation and they brought in the witness as a character witness as to whether Kyle Rittenhouse was intending violence, and that person said "yes", "based on what", "based on that 2 weeks ago he was sincerely wishing he had his gun so he could shoot people". Should that witness record be stricken? If not, why is the video not equally relevant? And if not, then how are you supposed to EVER prove intent?
I'm not saying you can't provide reasoning that it is relevant. The judge is saying that the prosecution didn't and threw it out. I would encourage anyone who is interested to watch the proceeding themselves as they're all on youtube. The prosecution in this case has been an absolute joke throughout the trial. A day or two ago there were news posts all over the internet about how the judge threw out zooming in on an image like the judge was biased, but it was purely prosecution mismanagement.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 14 2021 04:02 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Assuming current guilt from past events is not how our justice system works. Criminal history, or is this case talking about crime, should never be used as evidence. Lets say you have multiple possession charges. You shouldn't be arrested and convicted of possession because you have prior convictions. The state must present evidence that you currently possess illegal substances, not that you have in the past. This is one of the pillars of US criminal justice and being assumed not guilty.
Intent is the whole of the issue here. The question at hand is whether he was a bystander who was forced into an awful self defence situation or if he was there purposely to shoot people. His statement of intent couldn’t be more relevant. Irrelevant prior history is irrelevant, this isn’t.
If I hit someone with my car then evidence that I knew their schedule, hated them, and set out on that drive explicitly trying to hit them would be relevant to whether it was murder or manslaughter. If my whole defence was that I didn’t intend to kill them and it was a mistake then the video where I go “man, if I was in my car right now I’d totally run them over on purpose to kill them” would be relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
