|
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 |
Neoliberal has quickly become a parody of political critique. The word has lost all meaning. Much like the “Millennials are killing the BLANK industry” think pieces, I can no longer tell parody from reality. I think we can just go back to unchecked capitalism at his point.
On July 06 2018 05:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 04:34 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 04:13 Mohdoo wrote:On July 06 2018 04:11 ticklishmusic wrote:
The US dairy industry is already subsidized to a pretty insane degree, IIRC.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the stock market tomorrow. I think there's a piece of the market that is in disbelief that this shit is actually going to happen. Putting our dairy industry out of business is a good way to reduce the # of people sucking on that federal handout teet. Our approach to dairy farming is basically just welfare. You need to rethink how you view farming and food production. We need milk and cream for almost all cooking that matters. And baking. It has never been a profitable industry to be in, but a necessary one for our nation to function and feed itself. And I grew up near and had friends who worked on a local dairy farm growing. Calling the amount of work dairy farmers put in “basically welfare” as if they were lazy or mooching is some real ignorant shit. Sorry they are not adding “value” to the American economy like the tech industry making 20000 smart appliances to spy on us and designing social media apps based on addiction research. They just make baking cakes possible. I don't see "basically welfare" as a bad thing. I completely agree with the way we handle the dairy industry in our country. But when republicans are always looking for ways to reduce dependence on federal teet, so long as the question of "is this a good program though?" doesn't matter, killing off the dairy industry is a great way to reduce the number of dollars going towards entitlement programs.
Food shortages cause panics and sometimes even riots. And every once and a while, they kill an entire royal family. Any political party that wants to lose an election should let the free market “handle” the dairy farmers.
|
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase.
|
Wheeler appears to be virtually the same as Pruitt in their fossil fuel interests and inklings towards dismantling their own organization.
At least he's smart enough to avoid being press-worthy apparently, and that relieves the pressure to resign. Probably a win for Trump by sweeping away the brazenly corrupt in favour for someone who can play Washington and stay under wraps while executing his agenda.
|
On July 06 2018 04:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Scott Pruitt was a special sort of corrupt. It is unlikely his replacement will be able to match his unique combination of evilness, outgoingness, industry connections, and competence at deregulating. Him leaving is a great thing.
Is this the same as what happened with Sarah Huckabee Sanders replacing the Mooch? I mean... she's an improvement... I think... but that is double (maybe triple?) damning with faint praise.
|
Sold all my stock in preparation for the upcoming trade war. Trump's speculated about putting $400 billion in total tariffs on China alone, and I wouldn't put it past him to do just that
|
On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase.
Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time.
People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground.
|
Tweet thread in spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +
So the GOP wants to confirm someone with no prosecutorial experience to the head of the DOJ Criminal Division. This guy represented Alfa Bank, the same Alfa Bank under criminal investigation and won't commit to recusing himself from the Trump-Russia investigation.
Sure sounds legit, right guys?
|
On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground.
It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires.
But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media.
|
On July 06 2018 05:39 crms wrote:https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1014886384660832257Tweet thread in spoiler. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1014886386216906752
So the GOP wants to confirm someone with no prosecutorial experience to the head of the DOJ Criminal Division. This guy represented Alfa Bank, the same Alfa Bank under criminal investigation and won't commit to recusing himself from the Trump-Russia investigation. Sure sounds legit, right guys?
Witches are real.
User was warned for this post.
|
On July 06 2018 05:36 plasmidghost wrote:
Sold all my stock in preparation for the upcoming trade war. Trump's speculated about putting $400 billion in total tariffs on China alone, and I wouldn't put it past him to do just that
I cash out on a lot of things too, putting some into investment property, and some to just hold for more investment property once we really start feeling the affect of these tarifs. I already know multiple contractors who are struggling with delayed projects now due to rising costs.
|
On July 06 2018 05:42 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:38 Plansix wrote:On July 06 2018 05:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Ronald "Greed is good" Reagan is what started all this when his Admin allowed companies to start outsourcing in mass that left many Americans jobless when said companies established in Asia where there is no minimum wage so they could sell back to Americans whose economic levels started to stagnate and have are now only getting worse as costs of living increase. Losing three elections in a row to the same supply side economics did permanent damage to the party’s left leaning base. They lost the southern, labor democrats in southern states, who all voted for Reagan and Bush Sr. 12 years is a long time. People can blame neoliberalism, but it is what this country voted for year after year through the 1980s and 1990s. The party went left in response and got smashed into the ground. It's what you vote for cause you're endlessly being propagandized to by billionaires and millionaires. But nevermind, you said you didn't want to talk about bias in media.
I am not real sure that applies to the elections I referenced. In the 1980s and 1990s the presidential campaigns were practically begging the networks and papers to cover them. The motto of the era was “politics gets terrible ratings, so we show it as little as possible.” It was a very different media landscape.
|
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong.
|
On July 06 2018 05:49 Sermokala wrote:
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong.
Just wait until corporations are allowed to have religions. Then you will be an invested member of the Lutheran of Dakota Oil Faith Based Industry, paying no taxes and raking in the profits for God and future investment in God's country.
Damn, I think I just created a villain for some YA dystopian series.
|
Gonna be fun watching my golden shackles stock from work these next few months. I'm tempted to just never even check.
|
I'm pretty sure I've asked this before but I can't remember. Can Congress overturn Trump's tariffs (I assume with a 2/3rds majority)?
On July 06 2018 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:49 Sermokala wrote:
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong. Just wait until corporations are allowed to have religions. Then you will be an invested member of the Lutheran of Dakota Oil Faith Based Industry, paying no taxes and raking in the profits for God and future investment in God's country. Damn, I think I just created a villain for some YA dystopian series.
Reminds me of the Neal Stephenson novel Snow Crash
|
The tariffs are based on “national security” which gives Trump basically unlimited power to impose tariffs. Congress could take away the power, but they would need to pass a veto proof bill to do it. That isn’t happening.
As one Republican leaving the party wrote today:
If Trump announced he were going to spit-roast immigrant kids and eat them on national TV (apologies to Jonathan Swift), most Republicans probably would approve of that, too. The entire Republican platform can now be reduced to three words: whatever Trump says.
Source
|
The only way I can imagine a veto-proof bill passing is if it's totally unanimous. McConnell and Ryan won't let anything to the floor that has more R's than D's supporting it, and right now plenty of House R's have no idea which way the wind is blowing here, so that's out the window.
A simple anti-natsec tariff bill could plausibly net 100% of D's and less-than-100% R's right now, so it's an instant no-go.
I maintain that the D's not signing onto various "won't pass or ever get to the floor and/or poisonous" bills the R's make a show of putting together will be pitched as them opposing a resolution, though. Whether this hostage play works better than the federal government and DREAMers will be interesting, for sure.
|
On July 06 2018 06:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The only way I can imagine a veto-proof bill passing is if it's totally unanimous. McConnell and Ryan won't let anything to the floor that has more R's than D's supporting it, and right now plenty of House R's have no idea which way the wind is blowing here, so that's out the window.
A simple anti-natsec tariff bill could plausibly net 100% of D's and less-than-100% R's right now, so it's an instant no-go.
I maintain that the D's not signing onto various "won't pass or ever get to the floor and/or poisonous" bills the R's make a show of putting together will be pitched as them opposing a resolution, though. Whether this hostage play works better than the federal government and DREAMers will be interesting, for sure. The Democrats can be patient and wait for the Republicans to be blamed for the economic damage. They have no reason to accept a hostage play.
|
On July 06 2018 02:58 WolfintheSheep wrote:So this was several pages back now, but... Show nested quote +On July 05 2018 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 05 2018 17:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Let's clear this up for the sake of the 20 other discussions that will continue throughout the next several years:
Do you want to remove all government empowered bodies of law enforcement within the United States and not replace them with anything?
- If yes, you can continue to say "abolish the police" all you like. And other people can ask you to defend your opinions as such.
- If no, please stop using the word "abolish", unless you are willing to explain to everyone who questions you on it that no, you do not actually mean abolish. How about I tell you what I mean by "police"? First, I don't mean any social mechanism developed to encourage adherence to agreed upon social conventions. What I do mean is any agency or individual that would self identify as "the police". As to how we go about encouraging adherence to agreed upon social conventions, I wouldn't call or develop anything like what you or others mean when they say police.That's sufficient for me to call it abolition. Cool, so that's a yes. Abolishing the police means removing the body of individuals responsible for enforcing the law. So next time this discussion arrives, and people ask you what you plan to replace them with, hopefully everyone can skip past the "everyone's misinterpreting me" phase. Show nested quote +If I understand correctly, the premise is: I mean reform, you mean abolition.
What actual functions of ICE are you or whoever this "Pro ICE abolition/anti-police abolition" crowd is actually calling for being abolished?
EDIT: To put it more plainly
What aspects of immigration and customs enforcement are you calling for the abolition of? presumably all of it right? or what you want is reform? I don't have enough in an investment in the issue to say what everyone else means by "abolish". But ICE is a joining of multiple jurisdictions and organizational responsibilities, and legal powers granted by several post-9/11 laws. Abolishing ICE can include an end to the joint handling of border control, immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention by a single organization. A return to border handling by individual state. And removal of the sweeping anti-terrorism laws.
So wait you think making immigration control, investigation, deportation and detention centers a state run thing is abolishing immigration and customs enforcement?
Well I have to disagree, and look forward to the people who say they really do want to abolish ICE explaining what besides the name of the organization they actually want to abolish (or just call it reform).
|
On July 06 2018 05:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 05:49 Sermokala wrote:
As a Lutheran I have access to investments in the north Dakota oil industry and I'm just going to keep my money there. Oil and religion you can't go wrong. Just wait until corporations are allowed to have religions. Then you will be an invested member of the Lutheran of Dakota Oil Faith Based Industry, paying no taxes and raking in the profits for God and future investment in God's country. Damn, I think I just created a villain for some YA dystopian series.
You mean the movie called Babylon A.D.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bYfklmb.png)
