EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 493
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9714 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I'll note my harshest words are reserved for what I believe is a fairly small portion of the left. Excluding that group I think a lot of disagreement is about what can actually be accomplished. I think it is rather less, or rather will happen more slowly, than what people farther to the left believe is the main thing. Those to the left of you might characterize the disagreement as being about what we should not longer accept rather than what should be accomplished. This is an important distinction, and I think its where the problem lies. Leftists (and i count myself in this group) tend to think ideologically rather than practically, and it means we always end up talking past each other. It happens here daily. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote: Those to the left of you might characterize the disagreement as being about what we should not longer accept rather than what should be accomplished. This is an important distinction, and I think its where the problem lies. Leftists (and i count myself in this group) tend to think ideologically rather than practically, and it means we always end up talking past each other. It happens here daily. While that may be true, those to the right of "hard leftists" who are still left of center are inclined to make a similar mistake in drawing distinctions between practicality and ideology. In other words, I think it's a mistake to toss aside notions of strategy that appear impractical when practicality actually plays a very minimal role in the effectuation of policy along ideological lines, i.e. Congress never finds itself bogged down in talk of how we can afford to continue military budget bloat, and yet, financial concerns are thrown at those supporting policies like Medicare for All before the idea even takes shape. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:20 Gahlo wrote: The shit is a grey wolf supposed to be politically? Google is giving me an ultra-nationalist group in Turkey and when I focus on the US I'm only getting the actual animal and how government policy is affecting it. The post is from a leftwing meme sub, everything there is a reference to some sort of inside joke. That is to say, it can’t be explained. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:32 JimmiC wrote: Your post is part of the problem. Calling a large portion of possible supporters of your party certifiable idiots doesn't help. They may not be exactly the same, but people thinking there is a marginal difference is defendable. Not to mention later you talk about the DNC being a mess, part of that is the viscous attacks of themselves. Which you lead with! Low resolution thinking deserves to be pointed out. Political systems exist to lay the framework for how society functions. I don't need to describe to you the amount of differences Trump was able to enact when compared to Obama. This stuff matters. When you focus on the idea of drone strikes, yeah, they are very similar. But no one is helped by that kind of thinking. We don't do ourselves any good by simplifying thoughts or ideas. Any remotely thorough examination of both parties yields extreme differences. It is only when you apply strict "yes/no" thinking to specific issues, while ignoring a wealth of other issues, that the two parties can be considered the same. We can't tolerate low resolution thinking. We need to be thinking more and more, not less and less. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On July 17 2018 22:29 Introvert wrote: This is the second time you have acknowledged that this is a public display. iamthedave understood the point though, when he asked "sure, maybe this is Mueller justifying his existence, but isn't that better in the long run?" At least that's my interpretation  A much better question. I think the excessive - and unavoidable - politicisation of the investigation, which was forced onto Mueller, means that a degree of statesmanship is required for him to do his job. In this instance, this seems a reminder to people who seem eager to forget that the investigation is ongoing and is still turning up evidence. I do wonder, though, wouldn't they have issued these indictments - futile or otherwise - regardless? I think the Mueller investigation has proved its validity a hundred times over already. The near-certain fact that Trump won't be indicted doesn't invalidate everything they've uncovered or will uncover. That's like saying if I accuse you of murder but discover that actually the murder happened ten years ago and kollins did it that the investigation itself is pointless. Just because you don't catch the guy you think, doesn't mean the guys you caught weren't worth catching. And as I've also said, the BENGHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZI investigation lasted 38 million years and turned up considerably less than Mueller's has turned up already. It's a reflection of how fucked US Politics is that an actual investigation revealing actual criminal activity by individuals very close to or actually in the government is somehow determined to have no validity whatsoever just because it happens to be directed at the president. The President who is almost certainly a criminal himself, for other matters, I might add. At this point I think it'd require a special kind of blindness to believe that Trump's taxes will be in order if anyone got to look at them. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote: Those to the left of you might characterize the disagreement as being about what we should not longer accept rather than what should be accomplished. This is an important distinction, and I think its where the problem lies. Leftists (and i count myself in this group) tend to think ideologically rather than practically, and it means we always end up talking past each other. It happens here daily. I am all about outside the box thinking, but sometimes the barriers to change are real. Like if I could design a system from the ground up, I'd likely be saying very similar things as you guys. But given the way a lot of stuff is built, I just don't think it will happen and I see limited value in pushing for it. On July 17 2018 23:57 farvacola wrote: While that may be true, those to the right of "hard leftists" who are still left of center are inclined to make a similar mistake in drawing distinctions between practicality and ideology. In other words, I think it's a mistake to toss aside notions of strategy that appear impractical when practicality actually plays a very minimal role in the effectuation of policy along ideological lines, i.e. Congress never finds itself bogged down in talk of how we can afford to continue military budget bloat, and yet, financial concerns are thrown at those supporting policies like Medicare for All before the idea even takes shape. Or we could strive to be better and take a good hard look at where we are and how that can be improved, rather than helping to perpetuate a status quo by spending energy and attention on the unattainable. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On July 18 2018 00:18 iamthedave wrote: It's a reflection of how fucked US Politics is that an actual investigation revealing actual criminal activity by individuals very close to or actually in the government is somehow determined to have no validity whatsoever just because it happens to be directed at the president. The President who is almost certainly a criminal himself, for other matters, I might add. At this point I think it'd require a special kind of blindness to believe that Trump's taxes will be in order if anyone got to look at them. I feel like any cursory investigation of anyone associated with Trump should quickly discover rampant criminality. He really has that mobster mentality and he's really shameless about it. It's egregious even by the standards of other vastly wealthy real estate moguls. Everything is a grift to him. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 17 2018 22:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: In the background in the frame of the doorway, this is the meeting the WH barred American Reporters and only Russians were allowed in. The Spy that was just arrested. Jesus christ. the tweet made by the person Stealth had quoted here has been deleted by its author, and they have retracted their claim. more details can be found here: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07/17/good-check-great-mariia-butina-oval-office-photo-fiasco/ | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
I don't believe Rosenstein/Mueller thought Trump would actually act like such a wimp. But Trump just had to say he trusts Putin more than U.S. intelligence agencies. Multiple times. For some reason. Then talk about his bigly electoral college victory, putting right in people's minds that that's what he might be concerned about. Even if you don't trust the intelligence agencies or the FBI, just lie! Or evade the question! But don't use your bizarre line about how buddy Putin said he didn't do it so he's right and the U.S. is wrong! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Frustrated Democratic lawmakers are offering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez some advice: Cool it. Ocasio-Cortez stunned the political world with her upset primary victory last month over Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), the head of the House Democratic Caucus and a rising star within the party. But while the improbable win made Ocasio-Cortez an overnight progressive superstar, a number of House Democrats are up in arms over her no-holds-barred approach, particularly her recent accusation that Crowley, who has endorsed her candidacy, is seeking to topple her bid with a third-party run. Some legislators are voicing concerns that Ocasio-Cortez appears set on using her newfound star power to attack Democrats from the left flank, threatening to divide the party — and undermine its chances at retaking the House — in a midterm election year when leaders are scrambling to form a united front against President Trump and Republicans. The members are not mincing words, warning that Ocasio-Cortez is making enemies of soon-to-be colleagues even before she arrives on Capitol Hill, as she’s expected to do after November’s midterms. “She’s carrying on and she ain’t gonna make friends that way,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). “Joe conceded, wished her well, said he would support her … so she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.” “She’s not asking my advice,” he added, “[but] I would do it differently, rather than make enemies of people.” Asked if Ocasio-Cortez is, indeed, making enemies of fellow Democrats, Pascrell didn’t hesitate. “Yes,” he said. “No doubt about it.” Read the rest here. Now, in fairness, AOC clearly has some maturing to do and has (predictably) looked badly out of her depth on the national scene, as is evidenced by the story about her ill-considered tweet regarding Crowley as is discussed later in the Hill article linked above, or by her recent comments on Israel in which she, at best, comes off as a clueless ditz. But this doesn't change the fact that the Democrat leadership is continuing its tradition of showing hostility towards its leftist base and the leaders that come from it. At some point, there's going to be a reckoning, but the right leader from the left has to emerge. I don't think AOC is it. Surveying other national figures, I don't think that person has emerged yet. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 18 2018 01:05 TheTenthDoc wrote: If anyone else was president, this would have been the perfect time to release the indictments (after briefing the president, as Rosenstein did) because it's an important item for discussion before an international meeting and represents a good focus point for the press conference. It was also a potential softball to Trump because all he had to do was say things like "I trust our intelligence agencies and the FBI on these findings and have spoken with Vlad about the best way forward" and similarly comforting noises that the media still would probably have flipped their shit about. I don't believe Rosenstein/Mueller thought Trump would actually act like such a wimp. But Trump just had to say he trusts Putin more than U.S. intelligence agencies. Multiple times. For some reason. Then talk about his bigly electoral college victory, putting right in people's minds that that's what he might be concerned about. Even if you don't trust the intelligence agencies or the FBI, just lie! Or evade the question! But don't use your bizarre line about how buddy Putin said he didn't do it so he's right and the U.S. is wrong! I don't quite understand why people (left and right, pro-Trump and anti-Trump) are presuming that Rosenstein released the indictments against Trump's wishes on Friday. We know that he briefed Trump ahead of time. If I am Trump, and I'm looking to put everything on the table with Putin at the summit, then I'd want the indictment released before the summit. Trump, by all reports, takes a very different tact with leaders in his behind-closed-doors negotiations than he does in the public press conferences. The reality is that we don't really know what Trump and Putin discussed in their private conversation, and that's what matters more than the for-show press conference that followed afterwards. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On July 17 2018 23:56 Nebuchad wrote: The republican party is intellectually bankrupt, and mostly morally so as well (as others I'm talking about the party here specifically not the voters). It's not exactly an achievement to not be as bad as they are. The argument from the left where the two are equated, if made correctly (which it isn't always), typically refers to how the system maintains itself by having the democrats be a little better than the republicans and then threatening you with republican rule if you don't support it. The threat is legitimate, as republican rule is indeed worse. But that doesn't mean that's not a fucked up way to do politics. It's very parasitic, isn't it? The way that they can use Republican rule to threaten you to vote for them and as a way to give reasoning behind the quelling of leftward uprisings in their party? "You've got to vote for us, or else turtle McConnell will enact his bad person agenda! The Republicans are hot fucking garbage!" "We can't go left, we need to show unity and appeal to the disillusioned right and steal their votes, and going leftward will deprive us of that ability and let the Republicans take control more! It's just not practical!" Combining this with farvacola's point about practicality not being an issue, it paints a particularly bleak picture of the first election where I'll be legally able to vote. I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on: If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter? I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote: It's very parasitic, isn't it? The way that they can use Republican rule to threaten you to vote for them and as a way to give reasoning behind the quelling of leftward uprisings in their party? "You've got to vote for us, or else turtle McConnell will enact his bad person agenda! The Republicans are hot fucking garbage!" "We can't go left, we need to show unity and appeal to the disillusioned right and steal their votes, and going leftward will deprive us of that ability and let the Republicans take control more! It's just not practical!" Combining this with farvacola's point about practicality not being an issue, it paints a particularly bleak picture of the first election where I'll be legally able to vote. I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on: If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter? I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. I'd say the legal basis for the right to complain also establishes a good enough moral basis for their right to complaining. such a person should also lobby for changes that would make their vote more meaningful; and vote on those if they come up. and there are also other ways to effect change than voting, like writing your congressfolk, trying to do some of those would help give them more of a basis for their complaints. there's a difference between not trying one specific act like voting; and not trying anything at all. They could also engage in strategic voting behaviors to make their vote more relevant; of course some people find that understandably distasteful. it's not unreasonable or unjust to be annoyed at people who complain without actually trying to fix/address the issues at all. | ||
|
kidleaderr
365 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On July 18 2018 01:52 Howie_Dewitt wrote: I also have a question for the thread, one that I am unsure of my position on: If you don't vote when you have a chance, do you have a right to complain about the trajectory of the government? A Democrat in Wyoming might not vote, because their vote is essentially meaningless in the presidential election; does their lack of trying still matter? I understand that they legally have a right to complain, but I heavily dislike the fact that they would feel entitled to complain. I don't know, however, if this is a just position on the issue. There are some reasons to discredit your perspective. The first would be that there is a lot of voter disenfranchisement in the USA, such as gerrymandering, preventing convicts from voting, trying to suppress black turn-out by various tricks, electoral college etc.. A lot of people can't vote because they have to work all day, or because there isn't a voting booth nearby, or because they aren't registered or they don't have an ID etc. Furthermore, there is some type of psychological pressure on a lot of people to not vote. Not only do people accurately perceive that their voice and their vote almost doesn't matter, they're also constantly told that the youth vote or the minority vote is in some sense illegitimate. You're told that a technocratic government which rules by bipartisan consensus is superior to any "populist" movement. The USA has significantly lower turnout than many European countries, and that's by design. I would also say that voting is not the only legitimate form of doing politics. Historically most important reforms have roots in popular movements or come from strikes or demonstrations or other forms of political activism. It helps if you have friendly politicians in office, but even centrists or conservatives can enact good policy if they have to fear losing popular support. Also, the government is in many ways independent of the party which is in power (less true today), because of the permanent bureaucracy, the influence of corporations, the power of the military and the intelligence community and so on. Regardless of the increasing polarization, politicians are all pro-capitalist, pro-military and pro-business and have many things in common. Finally, it's useless and even reactionary to blame individuals for the existence of a system they have more or less no control over, and to say that because they weren't perfectly virtuous in the past that they should just accept a structurally unfair world. It betrays a sort of naive belief in voting fetishism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
