EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5493
| 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 | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5043 Posts
| ||
|
Yurie
12021 Posts
On February 07 2026 14:48 decafchicken wrote: This is literally the worst timeline Naa, that was still the one where MAD failed. Or Covid mutated badly. Or more unrealistically aliens killed everybody. US leadership being in it to enrich themselves and their friends is far from the worst one. Short term that wrecks the global political setup but China will step in. For the average person that doesn't change much in the short term. Long term we can see more states such as Iran becoming the default. Most people still live, even if conditions are only better than the 1920's globally it would still be one of the best times to be a human. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8704 Posts
that's pretty interesting I gotta say. at first I thought it was fake. the lobbying itself is not surprising but the brazenness of it all in the Trump era apparently contagious. tone deaf beyond belief with wide swaths of the public having to contend with everyday life (health care/housing/schools...) getting prohibitively expensive(or close to it) - and record deficits while the US is the "hottest country!". and poor old billionaires fearing for theirs. call me old-fashioned, but whatever happened to a rising tide lifts all the boats? | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9171 Posts
On February 07 2026 22:13 Doublemint wrote: https://marchforbillionaires.org/ that's pretty interesting I gotta say. at first I thought it was fake. the lobbying itself is not surprising but the brazenness of it all in the Trump era apparently contagious. tone deaf beyond belief with wide swaths of the public having to contend with everyday life (health care/housing/schools...) getting prohibitively expensive(or close to it) - and record deficits while the US is the "hottest country!". and poor old billionaires fearing for theirs. call me old-fashioned, but whatever happened to a rising tide lifts all the boats? This timeline would quickly turn into the funniest one if they buy their own propaganda, pull an Atlas Shrugged and seclude themselves from society to show us how much we need them, then come back and find the answer is not at all. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
On February 07 2026 22:25 Dan HH wrote: This timeline would quickly turn into the funniest one if they buy their own propaganda, pull an Atlas Shrugged and seclude themselves from society to show us how much we need them, then come back and find the answer is not at all. Cops sorta tried this for a bit around the George Floyd uprising and many people didn't notice/care. People mostly realized that they primarily just harassed people and spend VERY LITTLE of their time on stuff like "violent crime". The majority of the calls they respond to aren't even for crimes. EDIT: Should also note that, worse than the non-criminal calls that are a majority of what they respond to, they spend most of their time just proactively harassing people. In 2019, 88% of the time L.A. County sheriff’s officers spent on stops was for officer-initiated stops rather than in response to calls. The overwhelming majority of that time – 79% – was spent on traffic violations. By contrast, just 11% of those hours was spent on stops based on reasonable suspicion of a crime. In Riverside, about 83% of deputies’ time spent on officer-initiated stops went toward traffic violations, and just 7% on stops based on reasonable suspicion. Moreover, most of the stops are pointless, other than inconveniencing citizens, or worse – “a routine practice of pretextual stops,” researchers wrote. Roughly three out of every four hours that Sacramento sheriff’s officers spent investigating traffic violations were for stops that ended in warnings, or no action, for example. Researchers calculated that more of the departments’ budgets go toward fruitless traffic stops than responses to service calls -- essentially wasting millions of public dollars. Meanwhile, The prevailing political myth about police work was echoed again in August, when President [Donald Trump] announced his administration’s “fund the police” measure to support hiring more cops around the country over the next five years. “When it comes to fighting crime, we know what works: officers on the street who know the neighborhood,” [Trump] said. Most of the existing research flatly contradicts that account. The reality is: Police “have never successfully solved crimes with any regularity, as arrest and clearance rates are consistently low throughout history,” and police have never solved even a bare majority of serious crimes, University of Utah college of law professor Shima Baradaran Baughman wrote in another 2021 law review article, including murder, rape, burglary and robbery. Law “enforcement is a relatively small part of what police do every day,” Barry Friedman, a law professor at the New York University School of Law wrote in a 2021 law review article. Studies have shown that the average police officer spent about one hour per week responding to crimes in progress, Friedman wrote. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/police-are-not-primarily-crime-fighters-according-data-2022-11-02/ | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23633 Posts
Not a bad use of being "white club" coded imo. I personally would only try this if I was very "white club" coded though. Even then, obviously one could still end up like Renee Good or Alex Pretti, so try it at your own risk. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2102 Posts
On February 07 2026 22:13 Doublemint wrote: https://marchforbillionaires.org/ that's pretty interesting I gotta say. at first I thought it was fake. the lobbying itself is not surprising but the brazenness of it all in the Trump era apparently contagious. tone deaf beyond belief with wide swaths of the public having to contend with everyday life (health care/housing/schools...) getting prohibitively expensive(or close to it) - and record deficits while the US is the "hottest country!". and poor old billionaires fearing for theirs. call me old-fashioned, but whatever happened to a rising tide lifts all the boats? This reminded me of my friend in college who came up with the following get-rich-quick scheme: he made a Twitter bot that automatically showered extremely sycophantic praises upon every member of the Saudi royal family. Eventually one of them would be so charmed or amused by it that they'd pay him big bucks to either buy the bot's account or to make more of them. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18211 Posts
On February 07 2026 08:36 LightSpectra wrote: Feudalism was voted abolished by the French National Assembly before any of the French revolutionary wars. I've talked previously about how the Labour Party of the UK democratically, lawfully, peacefully nationalized 20% of their economy. There are no hard reasons the same thing can't be repeated today, it's just the barriers are different. As I said, naive. The French Revolution wasn't achieved with voices and votes, but with riots, guillotines and about 10 years of terror before Napoleon rose to power. Feudalism was indeed abolished, but it wasn't voices and votes that did it. But even if it were, the point still stands that the French Revolution was quite exceptional. I will actually agree that the French example was relatively painless compared to other countries' paths, which just further reinforces the point that thinking voices and votes is sufficient to bring about institutional change. E: as for your England example, you brought it up, it was trashed by kwark. We could rehash the argument about how it is in no way applicable to the current situation, but I'll instead just say that it was only possible because of conditions imposed by the second world war immediately preceding it, so once again, far from mere voices and votes. E2: what you SHOULD have brought up is examples like the perestroika, the ending of Apartheid South Africa, Portugal's carnation revolution or Spain's own transition from Francoist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy. None of those were achieved with only voices and votes either, but are modern examples of relatively peaceful transitions of power systems and elites retiring mostly quietly. But I'm guessing you're reaching back to the French Revolution because you know that none of those relatively peaceful transitions match what you seem to think could happen, and that is precisely what makes it a naive point of view. | ||
|
Ze'ev
148 Posts
On February 08 2026 01:20 Acrofales wrote: Approximately 1.5-3 million frenchmen died through the french revolution and following napoleonic wars. thats 4-10% of the population, around a quarter of the adult male population.As I said, naive. The French Revolution wasn't achieved with voices and votes, but with riots, guillotines and about 10 years of terror before Napoleon rose to power. Feudalism was indeed abolished, but it wasn't voices and votes that did it. But even if it were, the point still stands that the French Revolution was quite exceptional. I will actually agree that the French example was relatively painless compared to other countries' paths, which just further reinforces the point that thinking voices and votes is sufficient to bring about institutional change. E: as for your England example, you brought it up, it was trashed by kwark. We could rehash the argument about how it is in no way applicable to the current situation, but I'll instead just say that it was only possible because of conditions imposed by the second world war immediately preceding it, so once again, far from mere voices and votes. E2: what you SHOULD have brought up is examples like the perestroika, the ending of Apartheid South Africa, Portugal's carnation revolution or Spain's own transition from Francoist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy. None of those were achieved with only voices and votes either, but are modern examples of relatively peaceful transitions of power systems and elites retiring mostly quietly. But I'm guessing you're reaching back to the French Revolution because you know that none of those relatively peaceful transitions match what you seem to think could happen, and that is precisely what makes it a naive point of view. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2102 Posts
On February 08 2026 01:20 Acrofales wrote: As I said, naive. The French Revolution wasn't achieved with voices and votes, but with riots, guillotines and about 10 years of terror before Napoleon rose to power. Feudalism was indeed abolished, but it wasn't voices and votes that did it. You seem to be under the impression that I'm saying no violence or disorder ever occurred. My point is really closer to violence happens for a variety of reasons, but it's not inevitable when creating a better world. The abolition of feudalism and other early victories of the revolutionaries did not require, nor inevitably lead to, oceans of bloodshed. Almost all of the violence of the French Revolution began when the revolutionaries made the decision to invade the Netherlands three years after that. The world would be a vastly different place if the Revolutionaries didn't make a lot of unforced errors, especially starting in 1792, and we're in a better position than they are because we have their mistakes to learn from and not repeat. Also, just to avoid another possible misunderstanding, when I say "voices and votes" I'm not saying it's not necessary to do other direct actions like labor strikes or civil disobedience. I'm only refuting the idea that the world is inevitably going to go to shit unless we're prepared to preemptively embrace mass violence right now. E: as for your England example, you brought it up, it was trashed by kwark. We could rehash the argument about how it is in no way applicable to the current situation, but I'll instead just say that it was only possible because of conditions imposed by the second world war immediately preceding it, so once again, far from mere voices and votes. I provided a source that refuted Kwark's counterpoint and there's been no more said about that. If you could explain why we couldn't elect Clement Attlee-style democratic socialists without a world war preceding it, I could respond to that. But simply asserting it's impossible is not an argument. E2: what you SHOULD have brought up is examples like the perestroika, the ending of Apartheid South Africa, Portugal's carnation revolution or Spain's own transition from Francoist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy. None of those were achieved with only voices and votes either, but are modern examples of relatively peaceful transitions of power systems and elites retiring mostly quietly. But I'm guessing you're reaching back to the French Revolution because you know that none of those relatively peaceful transitions match what you seem to think could happen, and that is precisely what makes it a naive point of view. All of those relatively peaceful transitions are entirely possible to happen in other places in the modern day and the only reason I didn't mention them is because I don't want to overload the conversation by listing too many of them. If you ask me what's naive, it's seeing something that actually happened in history, that wasn't the result of freakishly unlikely random chance, and saying "Nah, that could never happen again". | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14103 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2102 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43557 Posts
I recall your refutation stating that although the government procurement office told private businesses what to make, where to get their inputs from, how much to pay for the inputs, and how much to charge for their product for this was still private enterprise. There’s surely a point at which wartime rationing, allocations, and price controls cross over into nationalization. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2102 Posts
On January 31 2026 10:04 LightSpectra wrote: "At the end of the War, 94% of industrial raw materials in the UK were controlled by the state.10 However, though the government had taken control of many industries during the War, ownership remained largely in private hands. The only firms taken into national ownership during the War were Short Brothers (aircraft manufacturers), Brown Ltd (precision machine manufacturers) and Power Jets Ltd (manufacturers of propulsion jets)." Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8325/CBP-8325.pdf The critical difference between private and collective ownership is whether the profits go to the owners/shareholders or all of society. The state managing and regulating production doesn't change that. So yes, the nationalizations did happen after the election of 1945. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43557 Posts
Let's say that a product takes inputs of $100 and provides value to the consumer of $200. Under a free market system the company would sell it for $200 and that $100 value created would go to the shareholders. Now let's say it's a wartime emergency and the government declares that they must have it, the company is required to make it, and that after an evaluation of the costs involved in making it they have decided upon a sales price of $105. There is still $100 of value created, it is still providing value of $200 to the end user (in this case the people of the nation). But now the value created is split $95 to the people and $5 to the shareholders. You write The critical difference between private and collective ownership is whether the profits go to the owners/shareholders or all of society and I don't disagree. But when the government decides that a private business is required to create a product and is required to sell it to the government at a set price then I think you're mistaken about where those profits are going. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States2102 Posts
I'm not ignoring the fact that WWII had already resulted in heavy state intervention in all facets of the UK economy, the question that's not sufficiently answered is why today's nations couldn't simply vote for the same Attlee-esque policies despite being in peace time. The only barrier, it seems to me, is psychological: voters have been conditioned by their families, communities, news media, political parties, etc. into believing it's either not feasible or desirable, but that could change with grassroots activism. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43557 Posts
On February 08 2026 04:56 LightSpectra wrote: I get your point, but the 94% figure (which is presumably why your example ended with $95 to the people and $5 to the shareholders) was just industrial raw materials. The Attlee government also nationalized healthcare, power, steel, and transportation. I'm not ignoring the fact that WWII had already resulted in heavy state intervention in all facets of the UK economy, the question that's not sufficiently answered is why today's nations couldn't simply vote for the same Attlee-esque policies despite being in peace time. The only barrier, it seems to me, is psychological: voters have been conditioned by their families, communities, news media, political parties, etc. into believing it's either not feasible or desirable, but that could change with grassroots activism. The 95/5 split was an arbitrary extreme example of value being split between public good and shareholders to make the point that nominal ownership matters a lot less than practical control. Not connected to the 94%. I think that a total war scenario makes a lot of things that would otherwise not be politically viable seem a lot more politically viable. If the manufacturer of air defence ammunition wants to make a point about the virtues of private property and the unreasonable impositions of an overreaching government then they can try but there are a lot of other people whose private property is also under threat should the ammunition not be provided. The "for the public good" argument is a lot more compelling when bombs are falling from the sky. When conscription is in force arguing for your individual right to make a profit isn't going to make you many friends. If the people supported it then it could have been done at any time but the popular support for extreme government intervention in the economy was inextricably linked to WW2. We’ve seen a steady decline in collectivism in Britain since the end of WW2 and that’s probably not a coincidence. Edit: That's probably why boomers are such assholes. If the theory is that classness national trauma experience instills the value of collectivism then it follows that a generation that faced essentially no challenges (white male boomers) while getting all the benefits of collectivism would completely fail to see its worth and would pull the ladder up behind them. | ||
|
Vivax
22168 Posts
On February 07 2026 21:30 Yurie wrote: Naa, that was still the one where MAD failed. Or Covid mutated badly. Or more unrealistically aliens killed everybody. US leadership being in it to enrich themselves and their friends is far from the worst one. Short term that wrecks the global political setup but China will step in. For the average person that doesn't change much in the short term. Long term we can see more states such as Iran becoming the default. Most people still live, even if conditions are only better than the 1920's globally it would still be one of the best times to be a human. Doesn‘t seem sustainable to me. I think most Euros are incredibly annoyed with both Russia and the US (govs) trying to fix their internal problems by making it their problem. Long term it seems like you‘re looking at a cult that tries to insulate themselves from the rest of society to do what they want before sending everything down the drain while they think of methods to preserve themselves in the event of catastrophic global warfare. Because that‘s easier than having a voter base accept that their standard of living can‘t improve forever or must even worsen. The beer keg is pretty full and the pish level is rapidly rising, m‘lord. Kinda tough to have an optimistic outlook. Idk, maybe it‘s sustainable/survivable… If Russia exhausts its resources in the war, do they simply capitulate ? | ||
| ||
