|
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 March 16 2022 20:19 farvacola wrote:
Making standard time permanent is the far better option. Congress actually tried making DST permanent in the 70s and they had to roll it back shortly thereafter because kids were waiting for the bus/walking to school in complete darkness, and folks hated making morning commutes even more than they do under the other systems.
this is a super good argument
for making the school day start later. savings time permanent is so superior.
|
On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll.
Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration.
On March 17 2022 05:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 05:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 02:06 lestye wrote:
I don’t buy that. Liberal pundits have nuanced opinions on China. They’re not going regurgitating state propaganda. I don’t think being critical of the idea that “trade wars are easy to win” makes you a shill for the PRC You've not provided any examples of Tucker regurgitating Russian propaganda (or any other examples of what Tucker is actually saying), and I suspect you're exaggerating there. The argument boils down to, Tucker is saying some things Russia agrees with. During the trump years, liberal pundits most definitely said things about trumps trade war with China that China agreed with (china wants american pundits to say that no trade war should happen), and China could have easily played clips on state TV (and may well have). And those liberal pundits were just stating knee jerk criticism, another example is criticizing trumps China travel ban. There's no meaningful distinction (other than partisanship) between Tucker as useful idiot and liberal pundits as useful idiots. You mean like these? That have already been posted, and there is so much more. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/leaked-kremlin-memo-told-russian-052009473.htmlhttps://ca.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-changes-tune-echoing-023043894.htmlhttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/stephen-colbert-shreds-tucker-carlson-080323780.html
Do these articles establish that Tucker has regurgitated Russian propaganda? All I'm seeing is that (1) Russian state TV is choosing to air Tucker (I don't dispute that), (2) after Russia started invading, Tucker criticized Russia for doing so, and Yahoo News characterizes that as a change of tune (I guess it is logically inconsistent to criticize both the Biden admin and Russia?), and (3) "Stephen Colbert had a scathing one-liner for Tucker Carlson" accusing Tucker of being paid by Russians (collusion hysteria still going strong).
|
|
|
On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration.
It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark.
Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration.
|
On March 17 2022 05:49 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 20:19 farvacola wrote:
Making standard time permanent is the far better option. Congress actually tried making DST permanent in the 70s and they had to roll it back shortly thereafter because kids were waiting for the bus/walking to school in complete darkness, and folks hated making morning commutes even more than they do under the other systems. this is a super good argument for making the school day start later. savings time permanent is so superior.
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but while changing clocks can be annoying in general and for someone's sleep schedule in particular, I say keep doing what we are doing now. Sunlight is good.
|
^maybe a minority but definitely not the only one. I also by far prefer the current system over any alternative.
DST is back on the agenda again and it finally passed this time. Just hope eu wont follow but there is a lot of pressure to change it here as well.
Personally i never had problems with changing the clock twice a year in a weekend with the next day off.
I actually do like the system and am sad if it would go in EU as well.
The movement and hype for DST all year is mostly artificial/manufactured and driven by nothing but economic motivations. Decades have gone by during which it was never ever a point of public discussion. And now within 3-4 years its suddenly one of the most urgent issues that should be solved. And social media keeps hammering down the narrative that this is a great thing to happen and that everyone is happy with it.
Its the manufactored campaign in the (social) media to make this an important issue that is bothering me the most tbh but i dont really care for it either way so o well. And i do agree with farvacola that standard time would be the most logical option,even though i would personally prefer DST.
|
Why don't we start school later so kids can be awake?
Why can't we make our roads safe enough so that kids can go to school on their own and build independence and confidence?
Why can't we build our cities in a way that we like living in them?
Oh yeah, cars and the economy.
|
|
|
The fact that cities and towns weren't build for so many cars is really visible in Poland, in my birth town there is so many cars parked everywhere, to the point that many lawns, flower beds and playgrounds slowly turned into parking lots over the years. Even near the newer buildings that had quite big car parks built, it's still not enough. It really saddens me, since I remember how much more space there was in the neighbourhood, but now its just cars cars cars.
|
On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration.
Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats.
|
|
|
On March 17 2022 08:06 Artisreal wrote:
Why don't we start school later so kids can be awake?
Why can't we make our roads safe enough so that kids can go to school on their own and build independence and confidence?
Why can't we build our cities in a way that we like living in them?
Oh yeah, cars and the economy.
I'd call it racial capitalism.
|
On March 17 2022 08:39 PoulsenB wrote:
The fact that cities and towns weren't build for so many cars is really visible in Poland, in my birth town there is so many cars parked everywhere, to the point that many lawns, flower beds and playgrounds slowly turned into parking lots over the years. Even near the newer buildings that had quite big car parks built, it's still not enough. It really saddens me, since I remember how much more space there was in the neighbourhood, but now its just cars cars cars.
Minimum parking requirements are a cancer to cities.
|
On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker.
I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China.
It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda.
Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/
|
|
|
On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats.
... As though I said nothing at all. I envy the simple life of going "but the Democrats" anytime someone slights a Republican by holding up a mirror. You have a good one.
|
On March 17 2022 07:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 05:49 brian wrote:On March 16 2022 20:19 farvacola wrote:
Making standard time permanent is the far better option. Congress actually tried making DST permanent in the 70s and they had to roll it back shortly thereafter because kids were waiting for the bus/walking to school in complete darkness, and folks hated making morning commutes even more than they do under the other systems. this is a super good argument for making the school day start later. savings time permanent is so superior. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but while changing clocks can be annoying in general and for someone's sleep schedule in particular, I say keep doing what we are doing now. Sunlight is good.
It's the same amount of sunlight, just a little earlier vs. a little later in the day.
|
I’ll defer to NewSunshine when it comes to DST, as they are TL’s resident expert on sunshine.
|
Northern Ireland26764 Posts
On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Show nested quote +Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/
That’s from 2011, is it still the case?
Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain
The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists.
Which hey, I don’t recall running into.
Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion.
I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’.
|
On March 17 2022 13:57 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 11:37 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 10:32 JimmiC wrote:On March 17 2022 10:23 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 07:30 NewSunshine wrote:On March 17 2022 06:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote:
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Whether I agree with trump on trade wars is irrelevant to the topic under discussion. That's not hard to see. And of course, tuckers critique of the Biden admin w/r/t the Ukraine war is not that Tucker loves Russia. That is just a silly and partisan exaggeration. It's absolutely relevant if you're trying to use it as whataboutism for the Tucker-Russia stuff. You're trying to take the criticism of Tucker the Perpetually Perplexed 'Premacist of the Pasty 'Plexion and paint it as unfounded, on the basis that the criticism of Trump's idiotic trade war was just partisan hysteria. You couldn't be further off the mark. Or as you like to say, just a partisan exaggeration. Regardless of whether I agree with trumps trade war, it's still true that the things said by liberal pundits aligned with the interests of China. So it's not relevant at all. Like most partisan digs on tucker/Republicans, the exact same argument can be turned around on liberal pundits & democrats. No they can not, which is why you keep stating it without any sourcing. This is not the alternative facts thread, put up or shut up. Show us the Chinese governmemt airing liberal pundits, or memos saying to air more, preferably with subtitles unedited, just like Tucker. I don't think it is very important to show that Chinese state media actually aired liberal pundits, because Tucker should not be faulted for what Russian media chooses to do. The point is that the commentary of US pundits sometimes align with the interests of foreign countries, making those pundits "useful idiots" for the foreign countries. For example you are not refuting that liberal pundits' commentary on the trade war aligned with the interests of China. They were useful idiots for China. It may be relevant though to note WaPo's acceptance of Chinese state media advertising dollars. Sounds like WaPo is a useful idiot of an organization if it is actually disseminating Chinese propaganda. Recently the Washington Post has started carrying China Daily's US edition as a physically separate advertising supplement to the printed paper, as described here. Fine: it's clearly labeled, and we've all gotta stay in business. But now the Post is doing the same thing on its website. Look at this part of the "Washington Post"'s site as it appears just now, and tell me how obvious it is that you're seeing a paid presentation of official Chinese government propaganda perspective. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/official-chinese-propaganda-now-online-from-the-wapo/70690/ That’s from 2011, is it still the case? Anyway that aside, Tucker Carlson isn’t engaging in nuanced, informative or indeed at times remotely true analyses of foreign policy that has crossover that happens to have some occasional intersection with broad Russian goals. The crossover is with Russian propaganda and their talking points in that domain The left media equivalent over China would be something more akin to a pundit saying shut up about the Uighurs it’s a myth propagated by Western imperialists. Which hey, I don’t recall running into. Note the rather specific charge of Tucker Carlson doing this. One dude, not conservatives as a wider collective. I’ve read many cogent analyses from across the spectrum on foreign policy as it pertains to Russia, with differing conclusions that don’t neatly break down into straight left/right divisions of opinion. I don’t get why the natural retort is always some form of whataboutery rather than just ‘Hm, maybe this guy’s judgement, ethics, or both are bloody awful’.
Counterargument:
When Trump first raised the idea that maybe the virus came from a lab in China, he was ridiculed. The idea was dismissed as another of Trump's irrational thoughts and an attempt to blame China for his own faults. No respectable media organisation went and did any investigation on the lab leak theory.
After Biden was elected, Biden and his advisers were now saying there was a possibility that the virus did leak from a lab in China. The point was still the same. The evidence was just the same as before. Suddenly the left-leaning media were reporting on it, when a year ago they had dismissed it out of hand, just because Trump said it, not Biden.
All during this time, China claimed that the virus lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. That completely matched with the left-leaning / Democrat opinion that the lab leak idea was a fabricated, baseless attack. Can we then say that the media were useful idiots for the Chinese Communist Party?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
