|
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 June 30 2022 07:00 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 06:50 BlackJack wrote:On June 30 2022 00:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2022 18:33 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 15:46 Sermokala wrote:On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In Norway the gas price last year was like 15 crowns per liter, thereabouts. ($1.5) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
Been about 27 cpl for a while now. Green party lost, but won, center party is still in government, but their support has been halved. xD. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Those people don't exist. They're just strawmen you see from fascists trying to paint people who believe science is real as eco terrorists. What euros need to do to break up their confusion on the gas issue is to look at the best selling cars in the us and the breakdown on car classes that are selling. Conservatives are reeing particularity hard because most of.them have a mpg under 20 and a lot have it under 15 on their trick or suv they drive on paved roads. They also commute about an hour or more a day. If you told them it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a prius or another car with reasonable mph they'd punch you in the face and call you a gay slur. Source me that happened to me. I get quadruple the mpg these guys get and they think I'm the idiot that needs a new car. A prius is an impractical car for a lot of rural people with blue collar jobs that often have to haul shit around. You can get mid-size and crossover SUVs that get 30 mpg these days. If gas is $2-$3/gallon people are still going to be happy driving whatever car they want. If gas is $6/gallon everyone except the most hardened homophobes are going to consider whether their next vehicle should be hybrid/electric. It’s really not. Most blue collar jobs are in manufacturing, they’re not expected to bring their own tools and materials to the job site. It’s a cultural thing rather than a need. People who work in offices culturally identify with the idea of people who need trucks and so they drive one as a way of virtue signaling. It’s mainly due to advertising. Even if you take a classic example of a job where you do need a truck to bring tools to a job site like contract landscaping or roofing they’re not all showing up in trucks. 4-8 people will show up in 1-2 quad cab trucks with extended beds, they car pooled. Americans don’t have a special need for trucks that Europeans can’t relate to. Europe has blue collar jobs too. It’s just a defect with the American psyche. It's not just about what they do for work. Being rural/blue collar also means they are more likely to do more DIY on their homes and their homes are more likely to be situated on acres of land instead of an apartment in a city. When I lived in Florida I knew many people that owned horses or chickens or had woodworking shops in their garage or a family they wanted to take camping. I didn't even live in a rural area, I lived in a college town. Not everyone wants to try to haul lumber or horse feed or chicken coops or their family with all their camping shit in the back of a Prius. Hell, I can think of multiple times in the past couple years where my SUV helped me haul shit that a Prius couldn't. The alternative being to pay $100+ to have someone do it for me, rent a larger vehicle, or try to borrow a truck/SUV from someone. I agree it's largely a cultural thing. Nobody really needs to go camping or hunting or off-roading or mudding. There's some people that don't do any of those things and just have a truck because they think it's cool. There's also a lot of people that do do those things and you can't take a Prius mudding. I have chickens I haul limber I have acres of land I have no need for a truck that my van can't do better. Horse feed comes sealed and you can't fit a chicken coop in a truck. I'm glad you can admit that you want the expensive luxury vehicle because you think it's cool and not because it's practical for the people who want us to think 5 dollar gas prices are a bigger deal than a national coup or the loss of rights by justices who do not have the legitimacy of being appointed by a majority of the nation.
So a prius is not an impractical vehicle for you because if you need to haul something you just use your van? Eh...
|
On June 30 2022 07:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 07:00 Sermokala wrote:On June 30 2022 06:50 BlackJack wrote:On June 30 2022 00:46 KwarK wrote:On June 29 2022 18:33 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 15:46 Sermokala wrote:On June 29 2022 10:24 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2022 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
In Norway the gas price last year was like 15 crowns per liter, thereabouts. ($1.5) We had an election last autumn and prior to that, our environmental party campaigned on increasing gas prices by a lot, possibly upwards to 25 crowns per liter. ($2.5). The other parties derided and mocked them and said that's absolutely not going to happen and they're out of touch urban elites who live places where public transportation and bicycles are actually viable methods of transportation etc etc. Parties refused to cooperate with them because of their environmental demands, and the environmental party ended up getting 3.9something% of the vote, where 4% is the threshold for significant parliamentary representation. The Center Party, one of the two parties forming the coalition government after the election, said 'they will not be in government if the price for gasoline is above 20 crowns per liter'.
Been about 27 cpl for a while now. Green party lost, but won, center party is still in government, but their support has been halved. xD. Frankly I'm wondering where are the people that should be rejoicing over these higher gas prices. If people care about climate change and want others to burn fewer fossil fuels then they should be satisfied that gas prices are going up. Higher prices should lead to lower demand, however inelastic it may be. Those people don't exist. They're just strawmen you see from fascists trying to paint people who believe science is real as eco terrorists. What euros need to do to break up their confusion on the gas issue is to look at the best selling cars in the us and the breakdown on car classes that are selling. Conservatives are reeing particularity hard because most of.them have a mpg under 20 and a lot have it under 15 on their trick or suv they drive on paved roads. They also commute about an hour or more a day. If you told them it wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a prius or another car with reasonable mph they'd punch you in the face and call you a gay slur. Source me that happened to me. I get quadruple the mpg these guys get and they think I'm the idiot that needs a new car. A prius is an impractical car for a lot of rural people with blue collar jobs that often have to haul shit around. You can get mid-size and crossover SUVs that get 30 mpg these days. If gas is $2-$3/gallon people are still going to be happy driving whatever car they want. If gas is $6/gallon everyone except the most hardened homophobes are going to consider whether their next vehicle should be hybrid/electric. It’s really not. Most blue collar jobs are in manufacturing, they’re not expected to bring their own tools and materials to the job site. It’s a cultural thing rather than a need. People who work in offices culturally identify with the idea of people who need trucks and so they drive one as a way of virtue signaling. It’s mainly due to advertising. Even if you take a classic example of a job where you do need a truck to bring tools to a job site like contract landscaping or roofing they’re not all showing up in trucks. 4-8 people will show up in 1-2 quad cab trucks with extended beds, they car pooled. Americans don’t have a special need for trucks that Europeans can’t relate to. Europe has blue collar jobs too. It’s just a defect with the American psyche. It's not just about what they do for work. Being rural/blue collar also means they are more likely to do more DIY on their homes and their homes are more likely to be situated on acres of land instead of an apartment in a city. When I lived in Florida I knew many people that owned horses or chickens or had woodworking shops in their garage or a family they wanted to take camping. I didn't even live in a rural area, I lived in a college town. Not everyone wants to try to haul lumber or horse feed or chicken coops or their family with all their camping shit in the back of a Prius. Hell, I can think of multiple times in the past couple years where my SUV helped me haul shit that a Prius couldn't. The alternative being to pay $100+ to have someone do it for me, rent a larger vehicle, or try to borrow a truck/SUV from someone. I agree it's largely a cultural thing. Nobody really needs to go camping or hunting or off-roading or mudding. There's some people that don't do any of those things and just have a truck because they think it's cool. There's also a lot of people that do do those things and you can't take a Prius mudding. I have chickens I haul limber I have acres of land I have no need for a truck that my van can't do better. Horse feed comes sealed and you can't fit a chicken coop in a truck. I'm glad you can admit that you want the expensive luxury vehicle because you think it's cool and not because it's practical for the people who want us to think 5 dollar gas prices are a bigger deal than a national coup or the loss of rights by justices who do not have the legitimacy of being appointed by a majority of the nation. So a prius is not an impractical vehicle for you because if you need to haul something you just use your van? Eh...
Yes. A vehicle lasts a long time when you're not commuting with it and you maintain it properly. A prius lasts a really long time because its not straining it's engine that hard on a commute and it's a well built machine that keeps it's value so you can trade it in for a new one every few years. That's what a practical car looks like.
Do we need to tall about the msrp and cost of an f-150, let alone about the mantience as well as the Loss of value or do we both already know about that?
|
|
|
Republicans: "You have to meet me halfway"
Democrats: *step forward*
Republicans: *back away*
Republicans: "You have to meet me halfway"
We know they can't be reasoned with. Why are we bargaining with them? What the fuck Joe.
|
|
|
On June 30 2022 09:32 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 09:24 NewSunshine wrote:
Republicans: "You have to meet me halfway"
Democrats: *step forward*
Republicans: *back away*
Republicans: "You have to meet me halfway"
We know they can't be reasoned with. Why are we bargaining with them? What the fuck Joe. The article in my tweet was paywalled, so I'll post Biden's reasoning here: Show nested quote +Less than a week after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, President Biden is set to nominate anti-abortion Republican lawyer Chad Meredith to a lifetime federal judgeship in Kentucky, reportedly in exchange for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) “agreeing not to hold up future federal nominations by the Biden White House,” according to the Courier Journal.
Meredith, a Federalist Society member, defended a 2017 Kentucky abortion law “requiring doctors who perform abortions to first perform an ultrasound and describe the image to the patient.” Note that the Federalist Society is responsible for basically handpicking Republicans’ Supreme Court nominees and ensuring that they would overturn Roe. The absolute blackest of comedy that Biden thinks McConnell will actually honor what he said. https://jezebel.com/biden-set-to-appoint-anti-abortion-kentucky-judge-to-li-1849126339
Republicans are sure to stick to their word this time. Millionth time's the charm.
|
God, I hate this fucking idiot so much. This is the exact opposite of how you react to RvW being overturned.
|
I hope to one day say the words "the president of the united states is a fucking moron" and be wrong.
|
On June 30 2022 11:18 Zambrah wrote:
I hope to one day say the words "the president of the united states is a fucking moron" and be wrong.
The day that happens I'm buying a lottery ticket because holy shit anything can happen at that point.
|
|
|
On June 30 2022 15:33 plasmidghost wrote:
I don't even know what to say to this. I don't know what we're going to be able to do to stop this.
this is getting weird. Its like the plan is for Texas to be given the right to ban abortions in other states and then have the supreme court rule in their favor, basically letting Texas law be applied to other states lol
|
So they want to send issues like abortion and trans rights back to the states and then have the supreme court effectively end state sovereignty by ruling prohibitive laws that punish actions committed outside a state's jurisdiction are constitutional.
|
"It's really about sending the issue back to the states to decide. Well, the states I like. They decide for all the rest of the states now."
All the cries of judicial overreach have gone deafeningly quiet. Well, your judicial activists are about to literally reach across state lines. I'm sure our Republican friends will denounce this blatant power grab for what it is.
|
On June 30 2022 15:43 Mohdoo wrote:this is getting weird. Its like the plan is for Texas to be given the right to ban abortions in other states and then have the supreme court rule in their favor, basically letting Texas law be applied to other states lol
Well, California could then pass a law that fines people who claim bounties from Texas, then use the same legal argument that what they're doing is none of Texas's business.
|
On June 30 2022 22:22 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2022 15:43 Mohdoo wrote:this is getting weird. Its like the plan is for Texas to be given the right to ban abortions in other states and then have the supreme court rule in their favor, basically letting Texas law be applied to other states lol Well, California could then pass a law that fines people who claim bounties from Texas, then use the same legal argument that what they're doing is none of Texas's business.
I was thinking something similar, but more along the lines of very strict privacy laws pertaining to patients. In any case, it's bound to end up quite the rabbit hole, especially when pro-choice groups start to focus on helping women across state lines.
|
|
|
On June 30 2022 19:36 NewSunshine wrote:
"It's really about sending the issue back to the states to decide. Well, the states I like. They decide for all the rest of the states now."
All the cries of judicial overreach have gone deafeningly quiet. Well, your judicial activists are about to literally reach across state lines. I'm sure our Republican friends will denounce this blatant power grab for what it is.
Let us be honest here, the obsession with upholding the law was always a cover so they could appear rational.
The foundational problem with that view is, again, contextual. In a vacuum they'd be right, interpretations leading to the result of Roe v Wade were bad and legislation is the correct method of resolving this issue. But the Supreme Court doesn't operate in a vacuum: the Justices for the most part have made it clear they're political actors (especially Clarence Thomas), the frequent trial ballooning so Republican states could start lining up their ducks made it clear they were acting politically, and the appointments post Gorsuch were ridiculously political appointments of people of questionable merit at best.
They can bemoan how these rulings are upholding and properly interpreting the law but, unlike most other countries around the world, these rulings also irreparably destroy everyone's trust in the juridical system. Which is probably by design depending which type of conservatives you believe is driving their bus right now. It creates an environment where Democratic states absolutely do not trust the Judicial and Republican states absolutely do not trust the Judicial if it ever swings to the left again.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
Are we seriously going to end up requiring some kind of Underground Railroad equivalent for abortions?
And a further gutting of the EPA seems on the table?
Fucking fantastic few weeks eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
