|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 15 2023 04:47 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2023 18:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 14 2023 15:26 RvB wrote:On September 14 2023 07:31 WombaT wrote:It’s quite hard to take them seriously by virtue of them being libertarians The LP in the US is not libertarian anymore. It is taken over by the Mises Caucus and contrary to their name they do not align with the views of Mises. They're a more extreme version of the Republicans. I still remember watching the debate like 7 years ago where Gary Johnson, asked something to the effect of whether there should be any drug laws, said 'well, I don't think people should be allowed to sell heroin to 5 year olds', to which the audience responded with massive booing. Was pretty amazing. Debates in the US puzzle me in several regards. I believe it was in 2016 one candidate was confronted with some subject or discussion point in which he had changed view since the previous debate. He said something along the lines of 'well I received new information in terms of X and Y which obviously speaks for a change of viewpoint'. At which everyone booed.
There is a less nefarious reason for this point of view. The idea is that you want your politician to stand for something specific. Imagine a pro-choice politician who after being in office says, "I learned that fetuses are living beings and therefore abortion is murder, I'm now pro-life." Pro-choice people who put that politician in office would rightfully be very upset.
If you're voting for a set of professed policies, then a politician changing his position on something is a bad thing. You never know when he'll change his position on something you voted him in for. He could even be bought off by a lobbyist.
If you're voting for a thinking human being who has a good set of values, then a politician changing his position on something is acceptable or even good.
I personally try to vote for a thinking human being with good values more than a specific set of professed policies. I'd like my politicians to adapt to changing information, but I am still skeptical of any of those changes in position. Did he change position because his campaign is now being bankrolled by ______? If he's got a good set of values, then I'm not so worried. But how often do you think a politician has a good set of values?
|
Northern Ireland24944 Posts
On September 17 2023 05:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2023 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2023 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2023 06:26 BlackJack wrote:
Yep. "If you don't fully buy into our ideology then you're either MAGA or alt-right, no ifs ands or buts." Pretty spot on, in my opinion. my dude, i know you don't think that is what i was saying, so why not just be a little more good faith lol Shouldn't we extend the good faith in both directions and not call most people that identify as "centrist" cowardly closeted conservatives? I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I was replying playfully to lestye. And just to preface, maybe we just have different experiences. For me, as someone living in Oregon, I think many people I know have run into someone who is something like this: And since it seems common for us to misunderstand each other, I am saying it is common to encounter someone who has ALL of the following attributes, and it is ONLY people who fit ALL of these attributes that I am teasing:
1) They insist they are not a republican and they are instead "centrist", "libertarian", or some kinda "no labels" thing.
2) They are anti-abortion
3) They are against gay marriage
4) They don't like the idea of wealth redistribution helping poor people
5) They commonly rant about left-leaning folks and literally never have a single bad thing to say about anything mildly conservative
6) They plan to vote for the republican candidate for governor of Oregon or presidential election or whatever at the time
I am saying it is common to find someone in Oregon who has all 6 attributes listed above. And it is very silly. And I am poking fun at people who fit ALL 6 attributes. Sorry for my lazy wording in my first post. I suspect the people that insist on "some kinda no labels thing" or "centrist" are doing it because they know the entire point of labeling them MAGA or right-wing or whatever is so they can be outright impugned and their opinions summarily dismissed. That's the flavor of identity politics that is very popular at the moment and it's one side more than the other that is obsessed with slapping labels on people, whether it's MAGA, white supremacist, transphobe, xenophobe, bigot, anti-vaxxer, etc. there's a label for anything. It's funny even here in the San Francisco Bay Area elected officials try to label their opponents/enemies as being MAGA fueled. The District Attorney of Alameda County that I've posted about previously has compared the recall efforts against her to the Jan 6 Insurrection. Setting the aside the hypocrisy of comparing a legitimate electoral process like a recall election to a coup, the idea that Berkeley/Oakland has a large MAGA contingent is preposterous. Of course they don't really believe that, it's just an attempt to get their supporters to circle the wagons by labeling their opponents as some outside fringe right-wing group when really their opponents are the "centrists" or even left of center. Labeling their opponents as right-wing is far more important to them than addressing their legitimate grievances.
Yes there’s a label for everything, humans label things it’s kind of our thing.
|
|
|
On September 17 2023 06:42 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2023 04:47 Warfie wrote:On September 14 2023 18:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 14 2023 15:26 RvB wrote:On September 14 2023 07:31 WombaT wrote:It’s quite hard to take them seriously by virtue of them being libertarians The LP in the US is not libertarian anymore. It is taken over by the Mises Caucus and contrary to their name they do not align with the views of Mises. They're a more extreme version of the Republicans. I still remember watching the debate like 7 years ago where Gary Johnson, asked something to the effect of whether there should be any drug laws, said 'well, I don't think people should be allowed to sell heroin to 5 year olds', to which the audience responded with massive booing. Was pretty amazing. Debates in the US puzzle me in several regards. I believe it was in 2016 one candidate was confronted with some subject or discussion point in which he had changed view since the previous debate. He said something along the lines of 'well I received new information in terms of X and Y which obviously speaks for a change of viewpoint'. At which everyone booed. There is a less nefarious reason for this point of view. The idea is that you want your politician to stand for something specific. Imagine a pro-choice politician who after being in office says, "I learned that fetuses are living beings and therefore abortion is murder, I'm now pro-life." Pro-choice people who put that politician in office would rightfully be very upset. If you're voting for a set of professed policies, then a politician changing his position on something is a bad thing. You never know when he'll change his position on something you voted him in for. He could even be bought off by a lobbyist. If you're voting for a thinking human being who has a good set of values, then a politician changing his position on something is acceptable or even good. I personally try to vote for a thinking human being with good values more than a specific set of professed policies. I'd like my politicians to adapt to changing information, but I am still skeptical of any of those changes in position. Did he change position because his campaign is now being bankrolled by ______? If he's got a good set of values, then I'm not so worried. But how often do you think a politician has a good set of values?
Yes I agree with this. I guess the specific matter at hand matters though. Because debates and political matters aren't all on matters of values, sometimes politicians agree on values/direction but disagree on implementation (and sometimes debates focus on small, irrelevant cases in a sadly populist way).
I forget what this specific issue was, but it was not on values. So I guess I'm trying to point out that it's not ideal if the principle of 'I'll stand by my values, vote for me' spills over into 'I refuse to change opinion based on new and relevant information'. Abortion is to me a pretty obvious case of values, but, e.g., legalising mariuhana is maybe not.
|
On September 17 2023 16:22 Warfie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2023 06:42 RenSC2 wrote:On September 15 2023 04:47 Warfie wrote:On September 14 2023 18:15 Liquid`Drone wrote:On September 14 2023 15:26 RvB wrote:On September 14 2023 07:31 WombaT wrote:It’s quite hard to take them seriously by virtue of them being libertarians The LP in the US is not libertarian anymore. It is taken over by the Mises Caucus and contrary to their name they do not align with the views of Mises. They're a more extreme version of the Republicans. I still remember watching the debate like 7 years ago where Gary Johnson, asked something to the effect of whether there should be any drug laws, said 'well, I don't think people should be allowed to sell heroin to 5 year olds', to which the audience responded with massive booing. Was pretty amazing. Debates in the US puzzle me in several regards. I believe it was in 2016 one candidate was confronted with some subject or discussion point in which he had changed view since the previous debate. He said something along the lines of 'well I received new information in terms of X and Y which obviously speaks for a change of viewpoint'. At which everyone booed. There is a less nefarious reason for this point of view. The idea is that you want your politician to stand for something specific. Imagine a pro-choice politician who after being in office says, "I learned that fetuses are living beings and therefore abortion is murder, I'm now pro-life." Pro-choice people who put that politician in office would rightfully be very upset. If you're voting for a set of professed policies, then a politician changing his position on something is a bad thing. You never know when he'll change his position on something you voted him in for. He could even be bought off by a lobbyist. If you're voting for a thinking human being who has a good set of values, then a politician changing his position on something is acceptable or even good. I personally try to vote for a thinking human being with good values more than a specific set of professed policies. I'd like my politicians to adapt to changing information, but I am still skeptical of any of those changes in position. Did he change position because his campaign is now being bankrolled by ______? If he's got a good set of values, then I'm not so worried. But how often do you think a politician has a good set of values? Yes I agree with this. I guess the specific matter at hand matters though. Because debates and political matters aren't all on matters of values, sometimes politicians agree on values/direction but disagree on implementation (and sometimes debates focus on small, irrelevant cases in a sadly populist way). I forget what this specific issue was, but it was not on values. So I guess I'm trying to point out that it's not ideal if the principle of 'I'll stand by my values, vote for me' spills over into 'I refuse to change opinion based on new and relevant information'. Abortion is to me a pretty obvious case of values, but, e.g., legalising mariuhana is maybe not.
One example of someone making a significant policy switch was that Trump used to be pro-choice, before realizing that he'd never win a Democratic primary, so to become a popular Republican he started publicly saying he was pro-life and had been for a while (not for any scientific or medical reason though). Given that Trump's presidency led to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump's opportunistic retcon of his stance on abortion and reproductive rights is one of the most directly impactful policy switches in recent history.
Another example: I think I remember hearing that Obama used to be pro- gay marriage before politics / very early in his political career, then needing to dial back the pro- gay marriage rhetoric to get elected (because the level of American support for gay marriage wasn't high yet) to the point where his stance was decidedly neutral and/or arguably against gay marriage for a short time, and then later on he "flip-flopped" back to being publicly pro- gay marriage once he knew that the stance wouldn't hold him back anymore.
Sometimes, politicians might legitimately have their positions changed through new information and convincing arguments, and other times they may publicly "change" their positions just so that they can become elected and start doing something else they consider effective, even if it's unrelated to the issue they changed their mind on.
I also think that someone could make an argument that pretty much any issue is at least somewhat based on "values". What we ought to do about something (such as passing a law) is, by definition, prescriptive/normative. Marijuana legalization could be based on the push for personal freedom, the belief that our criminal justice system is overreaching, the idea that there exists systemic racism within drug policies, etc.
|
Northern Ireland24944 Posts
On September 17 2023 10:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2023 09:26 WombaT wrote:On September 17 2023 05:58 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2023 10:02 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2023 08:24 BlackJack wrote:On September 16 2023 08:01 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2023 06:26 BlackJack wrote:
Yep. "If you don't fully buy into our ideology then you're either MAGA or alt-right, no ifs ands or buts." Pretty spot on, in my opinion. my dude, i know you don't think that is what i was saying, so why not just be a little more good faith lol Shouldn't we extend the good faith in both directions and not call most people that identify as "centrist" cowardly closeted conservatives? I think we're just misunderstanding each other. I was replying playfully to lestye. And just to preface, maybe we just have different experiences. For me, as someone living in Oregon, I think many people I know have run into someone who is something like this: And since it seems common for us to misunderstand each other, I am saying it is common to encounter someone who has ALL of the following attributes, and it is ONLY people who fit ALL of these attributes that I am teasing:
1) They insist they are not a republican and they are instead "centrist", "libertarian", or some kinda "no labels" thing.
2) They are anti-abortion
3) They are against gay marriage
4) They don't like the idea of wealth redistribution helping poor people
5) They commonly rant about left-leaning folks and literally never have a single bad thing to say about anything mildly conservative
6) They plan to vote for the republican candidate for governor of Oregon or presidential election or whatever at the time
I am saying it is common to find someone in Oregon who has all 6 attributes listed above. And it is very silly. And I am poking fun at people who fit ALL 6 attributes. Sorry for my lazy wording in my first post. I suspect the people that insist on "some kinda no labels thing" or "centrist" are doing it because they know the entire point of labeling them MAGA or right-wing or whatever is so they can be outright impugned and their opinions summarily dismissed. That's the flavor of identity politics that is very popular at the moment and it's one side more than the other that is obsessed with slapping labels on people, whether it's MAGA, white supremacist, transphobe, xenophobe, bigot, anti-vaxxer, etc. there's a label for anything. It's funny even here in the San Francisco Bay Area elected officials try to label their opponents/enemies as being MAGA fueled. The District Attorney of Alameda County that I've posted about previously has compared the recall efforts against her to the Jan 6 Insurrection. Setting the aside the hypocrisy of comparing a legitimate electoral process like a recall election to a coup, the idea that Berkeley/Oakland has a large MAGA contingent is preposterous. Of course they don't really believe that, it's just an attempt to get their supporters to circle the wagons by labeling their opponents as some outside fringe right-wing group when really their opponents are the "centrists" or even left of center. Labeling their opponents as right-wing is far more important to them than addressing their legitimate grievances. Yes there’s a label for everything, humans label things it’s kind of our thing. How dare you Wombat, no one has ever called a mildly progressive or centerist position communist for political purposes. It is totally only against conservatives and they are incredible victims you can not imagine.
How uncharitable of me.
Obviously the folks who complain 24/7 about ‘wokeness’ and share 8 hour long videos about how Star Wars is now woke are super mischaracterised.
Really they’re sensible centrist types despite literally aligning with the right on absolutely everything. And to call that out is just being divisive!
I forgot it’s incumbent on me to politically agree with ‘centrists’ who share literally none of my political beliefs, or anything identifiably left wing.
They’re obviously on the centre and not useful idiots for right wing policy.
Similarly I enjoy watching Has play Starcraft 2 because man, he’s just such a macro player. It’s truly inspiring to watch his macro cannon rushes.
|
|
|
So that's why he needs to own golf courses. So they can't throw him out for cheating :p
|
United States24660 Posts
Of course, the issue isn't that he cheats; it's that he brags about his performance on top of it. Nothing wrong with cheating in golf so long as you don't bother others. It's like Doom 2. I put many hours into that game. More hours probably involved cheat codes than not. That's fine. But if I type in IDDQD and then brag about how I beat Doom2 in less than 10 hours, that's laughable.
|
|
|
Is he playing alone or with someone? Could be matchplay and the person won or lost the hole and it was conceded or irrelevant.
Its really nonsense either way.
|
|
|
On September 19 2023 03:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2023 02:59 Sadist wrote:
Is he playing alone or with someone? Could be matchplay and the person won or lost the hole and it was conceded or irrelevant.
Its really nonsense either way. Nope he shot a “67” to win the tourney than bragged about his greatness. Then yesterday claimed he needed to stop Biden from starting world war 2 and that he was ahead of Obama in the polls, right after insulting Bidens mental acuity.
Hes obviously a dipshit but do we know this was the mythical 67 round? It just says from a round of golf in the video.
I love piling on but the golf video aint it.
|
Northern Ireland24944 Posts
There’s no real need to pile on
Trump is so full of absolute shit and has been for forever that an individual instance is completely irrelevant
It’s like picking one instance where your porn star wife rammed another dude and ignoring that that’s her profession and that’s what she does.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24944 Posts
Can’t read, what did I ‘miss’?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24944 Posts
Ah the usual shtick then.
Anyone who pretends he’s anything other than an opportunistic despot is beyond deluded at this point.
|
|
|
On September 19 2023 08:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2023 08:38 WombaT wrote:Ah the usual shtick then. Anyone who pretends he’s anything other than an opportunistic despot is beyond deluded at this point. No no, he is a generous and wonderful man. Melania just popped up back on social media to sell Christmas ornaments, which is hilarious since there is audio of saying how she hates Christmas decorations. Or Donald jr pleading to his audience to only by mug shot merch from him because others were lining their pockets. Half the “logic” behind Trump was he was so “rich” he couldn’t get bought, then reality hit and there is nothing too tacky for him not sell. Whoever called his mug shot the angry used carsalesman look really nailed his whole persona.
The idea that rich people cannot be bought is insane. There are no people who are more greedy than rich people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
