|
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 July 01 2018 09:58 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:
Much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Venezuela is not a closed off country like North Korea, we have instant access to new developments such as emergency legislation, we have access to economic data, we have access to surveys by reputable organizations such as Transparency International. Things have gotten worse by many metrics, corruption perception, productivity, access to food, currency depreciation, unemployment, closures. You can find reliable data for each of these things within 1 minute. Our knowledge of what is going on in Venezuela is not based on expat stories.
This is all completely fair. i haven't properly looked through these sources but I'll try and look at them to see what I think. I will say that the country has been badly run forever and that the context is very important and often lacking in studies based on aggregate data.
|
On July 01 2018 10:13 m4ini wrote:
Certainly not me, although i do think they could be paid better (NHS staff and german doctors/nurses, no idea about frech wages). They're underpaid for the hours they put in, and the NHS gets bled dry by (who would've thought) the UK equivalent to republicans.
A brief digression from US politics if you don't mind 
The staff in the NHS are used as political pawns in an ideological economic battle. This doesn't mean they are slaves at all. I've had alot of experience in the NHS and the staff are committed, driven public servants, very few of whom would do something else if they had the choice.
They are as free as you can possibly be, but underpaid horrifically.
|
That's literally what i just said, so no idea how to respond to that. 
edit: sidenote, my wife has multiple chronic conditions, one of which requires recurring operations. So we are quite grateful for the NHS.
|
|
|
On July 01 2018 09:17 Danglars wrote:
Republicans have a 50-49 majority in the Senate (McCain is undergoing brain surgery). The Democrats are targeting Sens Murkowski and Collins, two moderate Republicans that have bolted from the party line frequently in the past. The Republicans are targeting the Democratic senators that are from red states like Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Heidi Heitkamp. They face tough re-election fights in states that voted for Trump.
Trump’s list of judges was the strong selling point for conservatives; he’s advantaged picking another from the list. I expect this to happen.
So there's a fight over whether the Senate will confirm, and the upcoming election could easily change the result; don't see much of a reason to choose the justice prior to the election.
|
With the criminal investigation open into the president, it's possible that he's in his last year of presidency, so until the investigation closes it really doesn't make sense to vote on any of his appointments.
|
United States42416 Posts
On July 01 2018 13:34 hunts wrote:
With the criminal investigation open into the president, it's possible that he's in his last year of presidency, so until the investigation closes it really doesn't make sense to vote on any of his appointments.
Constitutional norms have broken down. It no longer makes sense for the opposing party to assist in the process and they aren’t required to under the constitution and can’t expect cooperation to be met with reciprocation.
|
On July 01 2018 13:34 hunts wrote:
With the criminal investigation open into the president, it's possible that he's in his last year of presidency, so until the investigation closes it really doesn't make sense to vote on any of his appointments.
Not to burst your balloon, but I don't think this will be the last year of his presidency by any measure. From what the investigation seems to be dredging up, Trump was surrounded by shady people but didn't really understand what was going on; manafort's litany of lawbreaking would have led to evidence that Trump was actively breaking the law instead of encouraging it. It's very likely that Trump will escape unassailed, but quite a few people from his inner circle will be taken down.
Besides, the Republicans have already shown that they don't need the Democrats to confirm a Supreme Court Justice, and don't particularly care to listen to their input.
|
Does Trump really have power to recognise Crimea without congress? Is anyone going to stop him?
On July 01 2018 10:13 m4ini wrote:
Certainly not me, although i do think they could be paid better (NHS staff and german doctors/nurses, no idea about frech wages). They're underpaid for the hours they put in, and the NHS gets bled dry by (who would've thought) the UK equivalent to republicans.
I don't think UK Conservatives are anything near Republicans nowadays.
|
On July 01 2018 16:13 sc-darkness wrote:Does Trump really have power to recognise Crimea without congress? Is anyone going to stop him? Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 10:13 m4ini wrote:
Certainly not me, although i do think they could be paid better (NHS staff and german doctors/nurses, no idea about frech wages). They're underpaid for the hours they put in, and the NHS gets bled dry by (who would've thought) the UK equivalent to republicans. I don't think UK Conservatives are anything near Republicans nowadays.
Lol I read that as m4ni making it clear it won't be him stopping Trump from recognizing Crimea at first...
I'm not even confident Trump's on board with the whole "peacefully transferring power is a key feature of democracy" thing.
|
Norway28621 Posts
On July 01 2018 05:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
perhaps the most important factor to the "success" of socialism in venezuela under chavez was that the price of oil at the time, which made the country relatively flush. it has a lot of parallels to the scandinavian countries which are often lauded for their strong social safety programs whose economies largely rely on north sea oil. i find it more than a little ironic that capitalism is basically what makes all that work.
Like Longshank wrote, Norway is the only Scandinavian country with any significant oil wealth. Denmark and Sweden still manage to have pretty generous social safety programs.
And Norway also doesn't actually use all that much oil wealth on social safety programs. We've been very careful in how we spend it, utilizing it to create a government pension fund. We have a strict rule on how much oil money can be spent per year (to not overstimulate economy) - only 3%, so that it ends up continuously increasing during what is kind of estimated as 'peak oil'. 60% is invested into stocks, some is prolly gonna be invested into real estate, so that fluctuations in oil prices end up being less detrimental. (global finance crisis hits hard, though.)
Anyway to get to a Norwegian level of wealth and social safety net, where 40% of the population has access to at least one vacation home, the oil wealth is necessary. But say, reduce average income&benefits by 15-20% - which would still be ahead of most countries and on par with swedenmark - we could do without any oil revenue. At the moment, the fund has accumulated nearly $200000 per Norwegian. If anything, it's a great argument for nationalizing resources - of course, only coupled with a responsible, non-populist government.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)
|
On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Bu..ya... re...I mean...
[quote] Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular. But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison.
Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans?
I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well.
I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you.
|
On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 06:51 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Wait are you still talking about the firs time he was elected. This is one of the few things we have continually agreed about that it was fair. Hell, as I mentioned King of evil Hitler also won a fair election and also was popular.
But regardless none of what you posted makes that election better then EVERY election EVER in the history of the USA. And where the issues come is not the first election it is the future ones and it is how he governed with absolute power and lack of transparency. You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument. What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you.
To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator.
Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently.
|
On July 01 2018 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument.
What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you. To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator. Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently.
No, he doesn't get credit for that. It's the usual "i got caught bullshitting so i'll ignore it".
He will not accept that as explanation/reason, but argue that "we should see through that" or it's "just a few bad apples", rather than actually accepting that this wasn't a hyperbole but actual reality.
|
On July 01 2018 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You're all over the place at this point and not making a coherent argument.
What issues do you have with which elections? When do you think the people of Venezuela didn't want Chavez in charge? That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing. And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you. To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator. Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently.
Obviously, if you're citing stuff like the_Donald and Gingrich as standins for "average American," I'm not going to argue nuance. It's clearly represented as something like "overusing the term isn't unheard of in American politics" rather than "I am using polls to support what I'm saying about typical Americans."
The nuance is: Gingrich talked about a centralization of power in one Agency (this agency has gained so much raw power that it will resemble a dictatorship-by-agency). Sam Johnson talked about the same concentration of power. However, Jockmcplop talked about any tax bill resembling a dictatorship. That's both wrongheaded, alarmist, and having it both ways. You can't say what the average American believes, generalize it to "any time the word is used badly, it's used for my explicit example of a way it might be used badly, but for which I have absolutely no support whatsoever."
Then when I go to sleep he edits in examples rofl.
So yeah, people are going to call Obama a dictator for his pen & phone talk ... they're going to call the new Health Insurance & Health Care Powers of the HHS dictatorial ... but then it's hyperbole about the concentration of powers. It's not "oh damn there the Republicans go again with tax bills and dictators." I hope you'll at least extend a modicum of rational analysis out to consider pointed hyperbole vs sloppy hyperbole. At least before I bring in four members of Corbyn's party to generalize about what the average Englishman thinks ROFL.
|
On July 01 2018 20:07 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing.
And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you. To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator. Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently. No, he doesn't get credit for that. It's the usual "i got caught bullshitting so i'll ignore it". He will not accept that as explanation/reason, but argue that "we should see through that" or it's "just a few bad apples", rather than actually accepting that this wasn't a hyperbole but actual reality.
Yeah you're right, there's nothing we can do for him.
|
On July 01 2018 17:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 05:58 ticklishmusic wrote:
perhaps the most important factor to the "success" of socialism in venezuela under chavez was that the price of oil at the time, which made the country relatively flush. it has a lot of parallels to the scandinavian countries which are often lauded for their strong social safety programs whose economies largely rely on north sea oil. i find it more than a little ironic that capitalism is basically what makes all that work. Like Longshank wrote, Norway is the only Scandinavian country with any significant oil wealth. Denmark and Sweden still manage to have pretty generous social safety programs. And Norway also doesn't actually use all that much oil wealth on social safety programs. We've been very careful in how we spend it, utilizing it to create a government pension fund. We have a strict rule on how much oil money can be spent per year (to not overstimulate economy) - only 3%, so that it ends up continuously increasing during what is kind of estimated as 'peak oil'. 60% is invested into stocks, some is prolly gonna be invested into real estate, so that fluctuations in oil prices end up being less detrimental. (global finance crisis hits hard, though.) Anyway to get to a Norwegian level of wealth and social safety net, where 40% of the population has access to at least one vacation home, the oil wealth is necessary. But say, reduce average income&benefits by 15-20% - which would still be ahead of most countries and on par with swedenmark - we could do without any oil revenue. At the moment, the fund has accumulated nearly $200000 per Norwegian. If anything, it's a great argument for nationalizing resources - of course, only coupled with a responsible, non-populist government. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway)
We can also compare outcomes with the UK. The UK also has North Sea oil rights only they went the privatization route. Norway's outcome has been far superior.
|
On July 01 2018 22:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 07:42 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
That has never been my point. It is the point you are arguing because for some reason you think that him being popular at times makes him not a dictator or somehow good at governing.
And you basically dodge everything else. I'm also still looking forward to why all USA elections ever haa not been fair or democratic. You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power. So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact. You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word. As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare. I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you. To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator. Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently. Obviously, if you're citing stuff like the_Donald and Gingrich as standins for "average American," I'm not going to argue nuance. It's clearly represented as something like "overusing the term isn't unheard of in American politics" rather than "I am using polls to support what I'm saying about typical Americans." The nuance is: Gingrich talked about a centralization of power in one Agency ( this agency has gained so much raw power that it will resemble a dictatorship-by-agency). Sam Johnson talked about the same concentration of power. However, Jockmcplop talked about any tax bill resembling a dictatorship. That's both wrongheaded, alarmist, and having it both ways. You can't say what the average American believes, generalize it to "any time the word is used badly, it's used for my explicit example of a way it might be used badly, but for which I have absolutely no support whatsoever." Then when I go to sleep he edits in examples rofl. So yeah, people are going to call Obama a dictator for his pen & phone talk ... they're going to call the new Health Insurance & Health Care Powers of the HHS dictatorial ... but then it's hyperbole about the concentration of powers. It's not "oh damn there the Republicans go again with tax bills and dictators." I hope you'll at least extend a modicum of rational analysis out to consider pointed hyperbole vs sloppy hyperbole. At least before I bring in four members of Corbyn's party to generalize about what the average Englishman thinks ROFL.
I'm not allowed to edit posts to add examples now? This causes you to roll around on the floor laughing for some reason. interesting. Proper examples demonstrating a point and the use of sources and references may seem hilarious to you, and I totally get why.
The main thing about this post that is completely wrong, though, is that you seem to have forgotten where this argument came from and what my original point was.
My original point was that in Venezuela, we only heard from a certain section of society about Chavez, and that those were the people losing out under him, and that when people lose out they are prone to hyperbole - which can include calling people a dictator.
I have evidenced this using elected representatives of the American people (If you are going to generalize about a people, isn't it generally ok to use representatives seeing as how they er.... represent those people) literally calling Obama a dictator when he was obviously nothing of the sort.
You have tried to shift the argument to a ridiculously pedantic point but I'm not going to bite.
Next time, to avoid you potentially injuring yourself in a laughing based rolling kinda way, why don't you inform me before you go to sleep so I know not to edit evidence into my posts.
|
It's great that the US Politics thread spends all its time on arguing whether Venezuela's economic collapse is because of socialism or not, but why is this relevant when there are literally zero high-profile socialist politicians active in the USA? Sanders is not a socialist, he is a European style social-democrat, so are all other self-identified democratic socialists.
Also, the United States is the most powerful country in the world by a significant margin. It has a very diverse and powerful industry and much of the world is dependent on it. If there was a socialist revolution in the United States it would not be weak and isolated and dependent on foreign aid or oil money, like Cuba or Venezuela. I would guess there can't be an overwhelming level of capital flight or deliberate economic sabotage to the extent that there will be collapse.
Suppose that Sanders wins the presidency and gives workers control over corporations, institutes a strong social safety net, raises taxes significantly, strengthens labor unions, nationalizes key industries, adds stringent regulations for big business, creates public pension funds etc. This is the worst nightmare of democrats and republicans alike, and probably represents the furthest any contemporary US politician can go towards socialist policies. Yet all it achieves is parity with Europe or even post-war USA (maybe going a little further). It's not at all like what happened under the Russian, Chinese or Cuban revolutions. And certainly no left-wing popular movement would allow liberal achievements like individual rights to be threatened, because defense of human rights has long been a left-liberal preoccupation in the USA.
|
On July 01 2018 22:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2018 22:21 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 19:28 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 18:42 iamthedave wrote:On July 01 2018 09:40 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2018 09:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 01 2018 08:34 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2018 08:21 JimmiC wrote:On July 01 2018 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
You said "all dictators claim the people want them to have more power" as if the people didn't want him to have more power.
So I was demonstrating that the people did in fact want him to have more power. So it wasn't so much a claim, as it was a fact.
You guys are right that being elected doesn't preclude someone from being a dictator, but the elections are legitimate and don't carry even the caveats that exist in reports on Russian elections. So I'm not sure it should have the negative connotations you guys seem to be implying with the word.
As to the US elections, perhaps you could help me in this regard. Could you point me toward some reports from international election observing organizations on past US elections. Then we could compare.
I mean from long lines, to hanging chads, black voter disenfranchisement (do we even consider any before women and Black people could vote?), everything Democrats say happened in 2016, and so on. Pick the most legitimate US election you'd like and we can compare it to the least legitimate Chavez one. The post I posted a while ago explains in great detail why they are not fair, your ignorance is amazing TBH. I've done enough homework at your request. You don't do any, at least do the minimum and read that. Because he is popular does not mean they wanted him to have more power and more than that that it is good. As I pointed Hitler was popular especially after he invaded France, but do to his power he could do a lot the people never knew about... OH WAIT....! You're back to making a completely incoherent argument where the facts don't align with your rhetoric where I've challenged you. You keep mentioning Hitler as if the situation is comparable despite being shown multiple times they are not analogous in the ways you're attempting to force them to be by sheer will and repetition. You say you "do your homework" but seem to be incapable or unwilling to accept facts that contradict your argument or recognize when you lack facts to support your own. Typically there would be a dogpile on you about how terrible your argument is both structurally and substantively but because there's a general ignorance on the specifics and your argument aligns with established western propaganda they aren't chiming in about how your failure to prove or even really make a salient argument is illuminating. I'm sure some people are reading this exchange and having long thought Chavez a ruthless dictator are surprised to find out that he was repeatedly elected in what several international organizations observed and deemed legitimate. I do have to appreciate that aspect of all this. Actually what is happening is because you have been here a long time people are not dog piling on you, which is kind of them. But a few people are chiming in with points against yours politely and you are not taking the hint. I never said he was ruthless, though he likely was. But He was a dictator, the world says so not me. Madura is taking it even further. Venezuela is also in economic disarray and people are fleeing the country and unprecedented rates. All these are facts you some how argue. + Show Spoiler +I was not saying he was like Hitler, I was trying to use Hitler as a counter argument to your whole he's not a dictator because he was popular argument. Since you wouldn't listen to sensible arguements made by me and also DanHH and Plansix. I don't think Chavez was a dictatorship, at least not for the vast majority of his time at the top. I think much of the problem comes from the fact that we hear about conditions in Venezuela from a certain kind of person, and they don't necessarily happen to represent the vast majority of the population. Most of the people who weren't completely poor saw his rule as a dictatorship in the exact way your average American would see a tax rise to pay for free healthcare as a dictatorship. They would say it as hyperbole because they are losing out. Shit people have practically said the same thing in this very thread. People exaggerate when they are going to lose out due to circumstances beyond their control. If the vast majority of visible sources are to be believed then it is absolutely in a terrible spot now. I would also say that the country has never been well run. Things seem to run better for big American businesses in Venezuela when they control the economics, but its clear to see that the country as a whole has been through the shit many times over and its probably not going to stop. Oil rich countries without enforced democracy tend to attract corrupt people who want to strip it of everything for their own benefit. I think most people over there probably don't care whether some corrupt politician is stripping the country of its resources or whether its a group of US businesses. Do you really think a rise in taxes, to pay for government-run healthcare, would make the average American think we’re now a dictatorship? This sounds like pointless hyperbole from you. Or are American stereotypes in the UK really this idiotic? Tax bills don’t make dictators, even in lefty estimations of how more right-leaning the US is by comparison. Genuine question: Do you literally exist to confirm stereotypes of Republicans? I mean, I've heard Republican senators on TV call Obama 'King' Obama and refer to him as a dictator, and the hyperbole around the ACA got to the hysterical levels of 'Death Panels' complete with a town hall of a Republican... governor, was it? shouting at a room full of people saying 'yes they are in the legislation, have you even read it?' while they all shouted back 'yes we have' and he told them they hadn't. I have no idea what Faux News was saying about him at the time, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say they weren't afraid to go in on the dictator talk as well. I know you think we're idiots. But I assure you, you're not very good at this, and we all see straight through you. To be fair to danglars, at least he didn't keep on arguing the point after m4ini and I provided him with multiple examples of elected republican officials literally calling Obama a dictator. Its easy to have a rose tinted picture of your own side of politics, I think its natural even, but its a mistake to underestimate the escalating rhetoric in all of Western politics recently. Obviously, if you're citing stuff like the_Donald and Gingrich as standins for "average American," I'm not going to argue nuance. It's clearly represented as something like "overusing the term isn't unheard of in American politics" rather than "I am using polls to support what I'm saying about typical Americans." The nuance is: Gingrich talked about a centralization of power in one Agency ( this agency has gained so much raw power that it will resemble a dictatorship-by-agency). Sam Johnson talked about the same concentration of power. However, Jockmcplop talked about any tax bill resembling a dictatorship. That's both wrongheaded, alarmist, and having it both ways. You can't say what the average American believes, generalize it to "any time the word is used badly, it's used for my explicit example of a way it might be used badly, but for which I have absolutely no support whatsoever." Then when I go to sleep he edits in examples rofl. So yeah, people are going to call Obama a dictator for his pen & phone talk ... they're going to call the new Health Insurance & Health Care Powers of the HHS dictatorial ... but then it's hyperbole about the concentration of powers. It's not "oh damn there the Republicans go again with tax bills and dictators." I hope you'll at least extend a modicum of rational analysis out to consider pointed hyperbole vs sloppy hyperbole. At least before I bring in four members of Corbyn's party to generalize about what the average Englishman thinks ROFL. I'm not allowed to edit posts to add examples now? This causes you to roll around on the floor laughing for some reason. interesting. Proper examples demonstrating a point and the use of sources and references may seem hilarious to you, and I totally get why. The main thing about this post that is completely wrong, though, is that you seem to have forgotten where this argument came from and what my original point was. My original point was that in Venezuela, we only heard from a certain section of society about Chavez, and that those were the people losing out under him, and that when people lose out they are prone to hyperbole - which can include calling people a dictator. I have evidenced this using elected representatives of the American people (If you are going to generalize about a people, isn't it generally ok to use representatives seeing as how they er.... represent those people) literally calling Obama a dictator when he was obviously nothing of the sort. You have tried to shift the argument to a ridiculously pedantic point but I'm not going to bite. Next time, to avoid you potentially injuring yourself in a laughing based rolling kinda way, why don't you inform me before you go to sleep so I know not to edit evidence into my posts.
Let's see, zero examples of Republicans calling some tax bill on health care dictatorial.
Zero examples of how this applies to the average American.
Just a whole lot of dodges that lets you bring in r/The_Donald to support a point on "average Americans." A whole lot of Republicans arguing for concentration of powers in a single man or agency "dictatorial," admitted hyperbole and very common on your shores too if we're being honest. Very little to do with how sloppily and unthinkingly you tried to make a generalization about the American people. I'll have to tune into the next Prime Minister's questions to see what the average British denizen thinks about words used as slurs Oh Helen Goodman talks about damage to life chances from hospital cuts, whelp I guess the average UK'er thinks budget cuts on trade ministries kill children!
I have evidenced this using elected representatives of the American people (If you are going to generalize about a people, isn't it generally ok to use representatives seeing as how they er.... represent those people) literally calling Obama a dictator when he was obviously nothing of the sort.
I would think anyone that spent more than 5 seconds reading this thread, as you have, understand how unrepresentative Congressional leaders are of their constituencies. Congressional approval ratings are far below Trump and sometimes barely hover above the media. The best trait a representative can have to obtain his seat is not how much he represents his client's interests, it is incumbency pure and simple. Now if you're trying to call other points pedantic, and only wish to say some American politicians use hyperbole, then stop with the non-sequitur and argue with legitimate bases, please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
