|
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 |
it looks like illegal immigration has been a major contentious issue stretching back to the Carter and Reagan years.
+ Show Spoiler +
User was warned for this post
|
All in all, were just another brick in the wall. I think Trump is the first to actually vocally say in front of a crowd what many americans have felt for along time. Secure the country, keep USA for americans, dont let just anybody and everybody from earth come immigrate here and put weight (financial, political, other) on citizens of the usa. Obama felt this way i think too but didnt actually say it publically.
|
On July 18 2018 09:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Can we dedicate the next 2 pages on this thread discussing the 4D plausible deniability of "no COLUSION"?
Yup, here you go, the transcript from the very live debate of Clinton vs Trump. It's history repeating itself within a couple of years. The sad thing, Putin most likely did know the American people to be "stupid" enough to vote Trump in. So in that sense, he was ahead of Clinton...
+ Show Spoiler +Clinton-Trump Debate
October 19, 2016
CLINTON: Well, that’s because he’d rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
TRUMP: No puppet. No puppet.
CLINTON: And it’s pretty clear...
TRUMP: You’re the puppet!
CLINTON: It’s pretty clear you won’t admit...
TRUMP: No, you’re the puppet.
CLINTON: ... that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race.
So I think that this is such an unprecedented situation. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17 — 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.
WALLACE: Secretary Clinton...
CLINTON: And I think it’s time you take a stand...
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it’s Russia, China, or anybody else.
CLINTON: I am not quoting myself.
TRUMP: She has no idea.
CLINTON: I am quoting 17...
TRUMP: Hillary, you have no idea.
CLINTON: ... 17 intelligence — do you doubt 17 military and civilian...
TRUMP: And our country has no idea.
CLINTON: ... agencies.
TRUMP: Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it.
CLINTON: Well, he’d rather believe Vladimir Putin than the military and civilian intelligence professionals who are sworn to protect us. I find that just absolutely...
TRUMP: She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her at every step of the way.
|
On July 18 2018 09:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Can we dedicate the next 2 pages on this thread discussing the 4D plausible deniability of "no COLUSION"?
I think Trump's master plan is to only say colude, not colluded, so it isn't purgery
|
On July 18 2018 10:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 09:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Can we dedicate the next 2 pages on this thread discussing the 4D plausible deniability of "no COLUSION"? I think Trump's master plan is to only say colude, not colluded, so it isn't purgery
Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying xD.
|
On July 18 2018 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:it looks like illegal immigration has been a major contentious issue stretching back to the Carter and Reagan years. + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post
seeing as i got warned i'll add my commentary regarding this ~1980 comedy skit about illegal immigration.
it contains many of the major themes of today's debate. are illegal immigrants hard working? in the comedy skit that is a "yes". do illegal immigrants work for lower than expected wages? in the comedy skit .. that is also a "yes". do illegal immigrants communicate well in english? in this comedy skit the person does not speak english very well if at all.
after watching this comedy bit i think many of the major themes of today's debate also applied almost 2 generations ago. seeing stuff like this makes it hard to take alarmists/extremists on both sides of the debate seriously.
for me this whole illegal immigration issue is : same shit different decade. wake me up when its over.
|
On July 18 2018 08:50 Plansix wrote:
The fact that Trump hand edits these prepared remarks has always amused me. Like he is so angry and addled that he angrily yells at a peice of paper that says things he doesn’t like.
But he does such a terrible job that the press was able to see what he crossed out and what he wrote. That the people responsible won’t be brought to justice, or something?
I fully expect him to return to bashing the Meuller investigation tomorrow, like nothing happened.
The funniest part of this is that he misspelled collusion. At first I didn't want to believe it, but I went ahead and searched around, and there's pictures with different angles, so it's very real.
|
On July 18 2018 10:22 funnybananaman wrote:
All in all, were just another brick in the wall. I think Trump is the first to actually vocally say in front of a crowd what many americans have felt for along time. Secure the country, keep USA for americans, dont let just anybody and everybody from earth come immigrate here and put weight (financial, political, other) on citizens of the usa. Obama felt this way i think too but didnt actually say it publically.
pretty sure trump's not the first to say those sentiment; just the first to say them in a very rude and racist way (in awhile at least).
none of those sentiments, in their more mild forms you have here, are anything new at all of course; and in many ways some of them are well enshrined in existing law and policy already.
in particular I'd note:
Secure the country is ubiquitous. it's also already done quite extensively.
keep USA for americans not as common; in practice it's usually used as code for racism, since americans aren't that well defined as a group anyways.
not letting anybody and everybody in - has already been the case for ages now. there's lots of restrictions on immigration.
on putting weight - immigrants aren't a financial drain, at least not legal ones, last I heard. illegal ones aren't really a direct drain, though they may hurt certain groups via wage competition.
|
On July 18 2018 10:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:it looks like illegal immigration has been a major contentious issue stretching back to the Carter and Reagan years. + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post seeing as i got warned i'll add my commentary regarding this ~1980 comedy skit about illegal immigration. it contains many of the major themes of today's debate. are illegal immigrants hard working? in the comedy skit that is a "yes". do illegal immigrants work for lower than expected wages? in the comedy skit .. that is also a "yes". do illegal immigrants communicate well in english? in this comedy skit the person does not speak english very well if at all. after watching this comedy bit i think many of the major themes of today's debate also applied almost 2 generations ago. seeing stuff like this makes it hard to take alarmists/extremists on both sides of the debate seriously. for me this whole illegal immigration issue is : same shit different decade. wake me up when its over.
The problem with this immigration issue within this decade is that there is a nationalistic movement behind it, that is also pushing fascism, and authoritarianism values. As a proud son of past war veterans who fought against this kind of shit, it's not acceptable.
|
On July 18 2018 10:47 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 10:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 18 2018 10:02 JimmyJRaynor wrote:it looks like illegal immigration has been a major contentious issue stretching back to the Carter and Reagan years. + Show Spoiler +User was warned for this post seeing as i got warned i'll add my commentary regarding this ~1980 comedy skit about illegal immigration. it contains many of the major themes of today's debate. are illegal immigrants hard working? in the comedy skit that is a "yes". do illegal immigrants work for lower than expected wages? in the comedy skit .. that is also a "yes". do illegal immigrants communicate well in english? in this comedy skit the person does not speak english very well if at all. after watching this comedy bit i think many of the major themes of today's debate also applied almost 2 generations ago. seeing stuff like this makes it hard to take alarmists/extremists on both sides of the debate seriously. for me this whole illegal immigration issue is : same shit different decade. wake me up when its over. The problem with this immigration issue within this decade is that there is a nationalistic movement behind it, that is also pushing fascism, and authoritarianism values. As a proud son of past war veterans who fought against this kind of shit, it's not acceptable.
meh, i don't think the current nationalistic movement is much different from the reagan era nationalistic movement. we just have a population of alarmists looking for clicks and views with access to twitter and youtube
watch Reagan's "a time for choosing" ... it is the "last stand on earth" for the USA and its "way of freedom". at the end of that speech i was like... "ok man.. .give me a gun and tell me which commie to shoot first".
by contrast in that same era examine all the effort Pierre Elliott Trudeau put into avoiding Canada from having its own nationalistic movement. if its not a problem at all why did squelching it become such a major theme for P.E.T?
Excessive Nationalism has been an ongoing issue and theme forever.. and not just in the USA.
|
On July 18 2018 08:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 08:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 06:11 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:39 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 05:01 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On July 18 2018 02:11 Grumbels wrote: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. Thank you. I will take this into account and reconsider what I believe to be fair when these points are added in. Edit: maybe I am too easily swayed, your words make much more sense than mine did lol On July 18 2018 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2018 04:44 Plansix wrote:On July 18 2018 04:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
I think the uproar over the press conference is maybe a little overblown, but Trump certainly turned what could have been a pretty routine, boring event into one that invites speculation given everything that's going on. It has been fueled by a lot of Republicans and others being stunned by a US President only attacking the US institutions while standing next to the leader of the guy who attacked our election process. And inviting him to assist us in the investigation. It was the one moment where Trump couldn’t escape the office and redefine in his image. A moment people could not downplay the impact of his actions as President. The biggest question is Why? Why does Trump take such a hard line with literally every nation he encounters expect for Russia and Putin. He will attack anyone, except for Putin. There is no good explanation beyond the speculation regarding the Russia investigation. Did he take a hard line with or say anything critical of Duterte? I think they are taking issue with the fact that they believe Trump should take his own presidential election (something he wants to view as incredible) into consideration when talking to Putin, since 12 Russian officers were charged recently. Duterte is free of that baggage to Trump, so the comparison isn't that simple. My point is there's an insinuation that Trump is subservient to Russia in a way that can't easily be explained for the same reasons he's fond of other authoritarian leaders, particularly ones that don't talk shit about him. Financial interests for one. Befriending authoritarians, especially as the President, makes it easier to do business in places that would otherwise be off-limits/severely restricted to US investors. Providing business opportunities not just for himself but for his family and people he sells that access to in his typically conman way. Secondly, he's jealous. He wishes the US media talked about Trump dominating the US like they do Putin dominating Russia. He sees Duterte, Putin, Kim, etc... as implementing winning strategies. Funnily enough this has been a frustration among many, his preference for authoritarianism makes him less critical of left wing regimes which are traditionally viewed as being run by "despots and dictators" than most in either traditional party. As for the election, I still think it's dumb for us to think Russia wouldn't also interfere in our elections. Not that there would be some sort of serious focus on Russia's election meddling had Hillary won. Instead it would just be painting all dissenters as Russian provocateurs and/or unwitting dupes. I think that argument has some merit, but Trump talked a lot of shit about Kim and NK right up until the photo op meeting this year. Russia seems different, just because he is so set on having good relations with them. It mirrors his business relationship with Russia, which seems to go back a while. Or Putin knows something, which wouldn’t be shocking at all. It could be as simple as Trump took a lot of money he shouldn’t during a real estate deal. I think the Russian messing with our elections isn’t something they would have tried until recently. In the 2000s, the congress then would have gone after Russia with a vengeance if they pulled half the trash they pulled last election. But this congress is so dysfunctional that we can barely keep sanctions in place. And I think one of the things that is lost in the Russian interference is the goal is to erode trust in the process. That includes traditional dissenters, third parties and protests. The Russians want us distrusting the police and BLM equally. No one wins when there is this type of misinformation and interference in the political process. Setting aside that Russia/Putin and the USSR/Kruschev/Brezhnev are hardly the same entity, both the interference and the response by liberals (smearing movements like BLM by saying "Russia made you say that" or "Russians make people distrust BLM" ) dates backs at least to the 60's. Though you can find earlier connections. What's new is how cheap and effective doing it with social media/the internet can be. Granted it's effectiveness has been highly exaggerated and amplified by the very people claiming to find it so heinous. I agree that its overall impact on our views is limited. But I think the largest problem we have currently is that we don’t know how effective it is at influencing lawmakers or other lobbying groups. If you had asked me in 2016 if the NRA took a bunch of Russian funds and hung out with someone who was clearly a Russia agent, I might have laughed at it. It turns out that it is far stupider than we ever anticipated. We just don’t our arms around the entire problem yet and I don’t think the regulatory agencies have the tools necessary to do it right now. The amount of dark money flowing into elections is getting silly and only getting worse. And until we get a fuller understanding of just how deep the rabbit hole is, we can’t address the problem. But you should see the Russia investigation as a gift. It is the perfect vector to get tighter regulations on campaign donations and other lobbying. Forcing public, transparent disclosure is a good way to cut back on money in politics. And slip some other regulations too, because why not clean things up while we are in there? I'd take this position more seriously if the same people were also as concerned about Israel and the other countries that have been openly influencing US political campaigns for a years before Russia. So what "starts" as a concern about foreign meddling, really boils down to a generic anti-Russian sentiment vaguely based on how bad Putin/"communism" is but not the foreign countries that overtly influence our elections that we don't ever talk about. In the grand scheme of "influencing our public officials" Russia isn't worse than Saudi Arabia, or the ethnic cleansing Israel's lobbying gets our support for. Which, when layered with the less tempered versions of this "Russia controls the president" narrative it betrays an almost strictly anti-Trump/Republican lens through which this "foreign influence" concern is viewed. Israel is a long time ally, Russia is not You can argue that both of those countries do things that shouldn't align with the US core values, but one of them fights with you guys in Syria while the other fights against. Putting them all in the same category doesn't make sense at all. You can launch planes from Israeli bases while Russia buzzes naval ships with jets and sends TU-95 bombers into your airspace just to test the response
I won't argue against the idea that this difference is largely result of whether the interference comes from parties supportive of US imperialism or oppositional. I just don't think that distinction is made clear in the hysteria or as redemptive as those who reference it, to give their position a more sensible gloss, suggest.
One way to sum it up is that the US prefers pro-US tyrants to anti-US/anti-capitalist democracies and will go as far as assassinating democratically elected leaders and arming tyrants with top tier weapons tech to enforce that view.
|
On July 18 2018 09:26 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 08:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 08:12 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2018 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Beto calling for Trump's impeachment feels like a miss-step to me. I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction. It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say. This use of the term "nothingburger" is new to me. As in nobody else I've seen using such a term has ever bothered to put forth a nuanced opinion, and only seeks to shit on not only the idea that the investigation might actually be valid, but mostly that it remains to be seen what comes of it. I can't accept that you speak for everyone here, sorry. Are you sure you responded to the person you thought you were responding to?
Quite. I don't know what you're presuming when you think I'm not sure. But if it's some kind of pseudo-inquisitive hostile retort, kindly save it. You're making an argument I've never heard from anyone else, as though it's something I should've known all along. If it's even a thing.
|
On July 18 2018 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 09:26 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 08:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 08:12 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 03:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I think that the general overreaction to the press conference and the allegations that Trump is a traitor/treasonous is a misstep. Trump's opposition looks unhinged. You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction. It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say. This use of the term "nothingburger" is new to me. As in nobody else I've seen using such a term has ever bothered to put forth a nuanced opinion, and only seeks to shit on not only the idea that the investigation might actually be valid, but mostly that it remains to be seen what comes of it. I can't accept that you speak for everyone here, sorry. Are you sure you responded to the person you thought you were responding to? Quite. I don't know what you're presuming when you think I'm not sure. But if it's some kind of pseudo-inquisitive hostile retort, kindly save it. You're making an argument I've never heard from anyone else, as though it's something I should've known all along. If it's even a thing.
Well I didn't use the term nothingburger and then you bizarrely claim that you can't acept that I speak for everyone here. Your post had no connection to mine in any obvious way so I was genuinely curious if you were responding to someone else on accident.
I didn't realize you acted this hostile when presented with new arguments. Some people Genuinely aren't assholes when they talk to someone they disagree with.
|
On July 18 2018 12:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 11:00 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 09:26 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 08:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 08:12 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 07:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 18 2018 06:50 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:59 hunts wrote:On July 18 2018 05:52 Sermokala wrote:On July 18 2018 05:34 hunts wrote:
[quote]
You have been calling "trump's opposition" unhinged for over a year now. You have also been calling the investigation a witch hunt, a farce, a nothingburger, etc.. Yet more and more people, including ones close to trump, keep getting indicted or arrested. At what point do you go: "ok, maybe there's something to this whole russian puppet thing"? When the investigation finish's and we have something more then gossip and hearsay to go off on? So then how is it justifiable to keep saying that the investigation is a witch hunt, a farce, etc... if it's not finished yet? Because its commentary on the investigation and not commentary on the perceived result of the investigation. When you call an investigation a witch hunt, farce, nothingburger, etc. I don't see how that doesn't imply the opinion that there will be no result. If people in Trump's camp want to conjecture that there's nothing to the investigation, then people outside that camp can full well conjecture in the other direction. It doesn't imply that there will be no result it implys that the information coming out from the investigation is ment to damm the person being investigated in public before it ever gets a chance at a trail per say. This use of the term "nothingburger" is new to me. As in nobody else I've seen using such a term has ever bothered to put forth a nuanced opinion, and only seeks to shit on not only the idea that the investigation might actually be valid, but mostly that it remains to be seen what comes of it. I can't accept that you speak for everyone here, sorry. Are you sure you responded to the person you thought you were responding to? Quite. I don't know what you're presuming when you think I'm not sure. But if it's some kind of pseudo-inquisitive hostile retort, kindly save it. You're making an argument I've never heard from anyone else, as though it's something I should've known all along. If it's even a thing. Well I didn't use the term nothingburger and then you bizarrely claim that you can't acept that I speak for everyone here. Your post had no connection to mine in any obvious way so I was genuinely curious if you were responding to someone else on accident. I didn't realize you acted this hostile when presented with new arguments. Some people Genuinely aren't assholes when they talk to someone they disagree with.
It's a response to your assertion that terms regularly used to deride investigations like Mueller's are just meant as a commentary on the nature of the investigation, and that the people using them aren't trying to just be shitty about it. If you're not trying to speak on behalf of everyone who ever used the descriptions of witch hunt or nothingburger, then I apologize. Perhaps I'm not directly responding to you in that case, in which case I'm happy to drop it.
|
My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Trump forever. We begin prosecution in five minutes.
+ Show Spoiler +If only Reagan could do that for us...
|
On July 18 2018 10:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 09:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Can we dedicate the next 2 pages on this thread discussing the 4D plausible deniability of "no COLUSION"? I think Trump's master plan is to only say colude, not colluded, so it isn't purgery
Genius!
Like its so stupid that it will actually work.
|
I thought this was a funny take on the election meddling topic. Be warned that the author is usually deliberately contrarian..
(source)
A brief defense of election meddling
The nation-state is a reactionary social institution built around accidents of geography, the historical legacy of war, and the dangerous pathologies of tribal identity. We all live in the same world, and we all have a stake in everything that happens everywhere. This is particularly easy to see when you look at problems like climate change and global inequality - problems that have emerged, in part, because the victims have little-to-no control over the nations that are causing them.
Those victims should have a democratic voice in decisions that effect them. Since current international arrangements (borders, privileges of citizenship, etc) prevent this, they should be torn down - and while they are still standing, resisted. Particularly in the United States, which controls a wildly disproportionate share of the earth's resources, and which wreaks havoc on so much of the world through our military and economic power, the left should welcome a voice in our elections from the international community.
This does not, of course, mean that everyone living outside of the borders of the United States has an agenda amenable to the left. The international bourgeoisie - embodied in multinational corporations, capitalist governments, and sundry oligarchs - has always been the primary culprit in so-called "election meddling", and they should be stripped of their influence altogether. But the way you do that is not to divide the world into exclusive jurisdictions and then enforce reactionary restrictions on democracy, fetishizing the nation-state, praising its allies as "patriots" and its enemies as "traitors"; the way you prevent election-meddling by the bourgeoisie is by destroying the bourgeoisie.
Socialism has always aspired (in the long-term, if not the short-term) towards some form of global governance that can embody the will of the international proletariat. As much of our political class broods over the dangers of "Russian" influence in our elections, we should guard against the ways that this discourse casually implicates an entire nation in the crimes of its bourgeoisie. If Russiagate were simply a matter of ordinary Russians fighting for some minimal influence over a global power that touches their lives, too, why would the US left consider this a scandal?
I find it quite witty, because it's probably the most intellectually consistent defense of election meddling in general, but the right would never utilize it.
I'm not even sure if the concept of election meddling is that meaningful outside of specific qualifiers, because it has long since been US policy to actively seek to influence every other government in the world to be partial to US interests. This is common practice for every nation, with varying degrees of success. Many forms of election meddling seem vaguely harmless, maybe not nice but hardly evil, like financing opposition parties or stuff like Radio Free Europe.
It seems to me that liberals who are upset by Russia's election meddling should consider being more specific about what happened beyond the apparently ineffective Russian social media campaign. It's alleged that more happened beyond that, there are insinuations about voter enrollment and collusion, and certainly those seem rather nefarious and worthy of investigation. But what's so morally wrong with occasional intrusions of Russian propaganda?
|
On July 18 2018 19:02 Grumbels wrote:I thought this was a funny take on the election meddling topic. Be warned that the author is usually deliberately contrarian.. ( source) Show nested quote +A brief defense of election meddling
The nation-state is a reactionary social institution built around accidents of geography, the historical legacy of war, and the dangerous pathologies of tribal identity. We all live in the same world, and we all have a stake in everything that happens everywhere. This is particularly easy to see when you look at problems like climate change and global inequality - problems that have emerged, in part, because the victims have little-to-no control over the nations that are causing them.
Those victims should have a democratic voice in decisions that effect them. Since current international arrangements (borders, privileges of citizenship, etc) prevent this, they should be torn down - and while they are still standing, resisted. Particularly in the United States, which controls a wildly disproportionate share of the earth's resources, and which wreaks havoc on so much of the world through our military and economic power, the left should welcome a voice in our elections from the international community.
This does not, of course, mean that everyone living outside of the borders of the United States has an agenda amenable to the left. The international bourgeoisie - embodied in multinational corporations, capitalist governments, and sundry oligarchs - has always been the primary culprit in so-called "election meddling", and they should be stripped of their influence altogether. But the way you do that is not to divide the world into exclusive jurisdictions and then enforce reactionary restrictions on democracy, fetishizing the nation-state, praising its allies as "patriots" and its enemies as "traitors"; the way you prevent election-meddling by the bourgeoisie is by destroying the bourgeoisie.
Socialism has always aspired (in the long-term, if not the short-term) towards some form of global governance that can embody the will of the international proletariat. As much of our political class broods over the dangers of "Russian" influence in our elections, we should guard against the ways that this discourse casually implicates an entire nation in the crimes of its bourgeoisie. If Russiagate were simply a matter of ordinary Russians fighting for some minimal influence over a global power that touches their lives, too, why would the US left consider this a scandal? I find it quite witty, because it's probably the most intellectually consistent defense of election meddling in general, but the right would never utilize it. I'm not even sure if the concept of election meddling is that meaningful outside of specific qualifiers, because it has long since been US policy to actively seek to influence every other government in the world to be partial to US interests. This is common practice for every nation, with varying degrees of success. Many forms of election meddling seem vaguely harmless, maybe not nice but hardly evil, like financing opposition parties or stuff like Radio Free Europe. It seems to me that liberals who are upset by Russia's election meddling should consider being more specific about what happened beyond the apparently ineffective Russian social media campaign. It's alleged that more happened beyond that, there are insinuations about voter enrollment and collusion, and certainly those seem rather nefarious and worthy of investigation. But what's so morally wrong with occasional intrusions of Russian propaganda?
I suggest you back up about 500 pages and start reading the actual discussion. I did find the international socialist defense of election meddling quite entertaining tho, but if you don't actually know any of the details about what is being investigated, you should probably have just left it at that.
|
On July 18 2018 04:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2018 04:14 Djabanete wrote:On July 18 2018 01:09 xDaunt wrote:+ Show Spoiler +If you guys are upset with the Democratic Party now, just wait for them to torpedo Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We can already see it coming a mile away: 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. I agree that that sounds like torpedoing. About your clueless ditz comment. I did not watch the video but I read the story. I assume she came off badly in the video, in which case she might be not eloquent, not informed, or both eloquent and informed but not well rested. That said, the story you linked shows a bad side of political news coverage that is devoted to gloating over weakness and magnifying the weakness in the public perception, rather than informing readers. Every turn of phrase is crafted to put her in a bad light, starting with the ridiculous title: she "started" the Israel occupation controversy? Regarding the substance, her use of the term occupation is unremarkable, and the justification she touches on, though perhaps not too well articulated, is valid. The status quo for decades has been illegal settlers making gradual inroads into Palestinian territory with the full protection of the IDF, with the effect of carving up the geography and hemming in Palestinians in a shrinking region with walls and checkpoints. Travel and commerce are controlled by the IDF. AOC's stated view of this, including that a human rights lens is applicable to the situation, is at least more correct than the implied position of some of her critics in the story, which seems to be that the word occupation is misapplied. Her problem wasn't so much the position she took as it was the fact that she was demonstrably uncomfortable with the material, reversing herself during the interview and then stating something to the effect of "I am not an expert on this stuff." It was clear that the extent of her knowledge on this stuff encompassed only broad-based platitudes instead of a basic degree of competency.
So at least on par with the President of the United States, then?
|
In fairness hardly anyone understands the Israel Palestine conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
