EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 569
| 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 | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:30 Aquanim wrote: Oh, so you were picking a fight with zlefin, and GH just tagged along for funsies. My bad. Looked more like adding important context in an equally palatable way to me. PotAto, POtato | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:38 Aquanim wrote: "Adding important context in a palatable way" doesn't generally start with a sarcastic accusation of duplicity like "It's awfully convenient you left this out...". Neither does leaving out the foundation of horrible shit it took for the US to get where it is, but only one of those offends you. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Looked more like adding important context in an equally palatable way to me. PotAto, POtato Nah, it was consistently terrible, low content posting and a refusal to improve the quality of my posting and did not encourage meaningful discussions. Unlike the 30 pages of 1 liners in a "discussion" on who ordered what 100 years ago that people were having about Stalin. That was quality USPMT stuff right there. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:40 GreenHorizons wrote: Neither does leaving out the foundation of horrible shit it took for the US to get where it is, but only one of those offends you. ROFL ok, I think we're done here if that's the best you can do. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:41 Aquanim wrote: ROFL ok, I think we're done here if that's the best you can do. It's the whole argument for which you haven't really provided any semblance of a counterargument. We needn't have started it seems. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:43 GreenHorizons wrote: It's the whole argument for which you haven't really provided any semblance of a counterargument. We needn't have started it seems. Sure I did. You just didn't agree with some of it so you refuse to admit it exists. Not my problem. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:48 Aquanim wrote: Sure I did. You just didn't agree with some of it so you refuse to admit it exists. Not my problem. It's not a matter of agreement. You're wrong. It is relevant. That you find it irrelevant is a symptom of a much larger problem that I've explained in detail many times. It's like marrying a wealthy person, then murdering them, then collecting the life insurance you took out beforehand and mentioning you're wealthy because you invested your money and spent wisely. Your argument isn't sound. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I feel this pedantic clarification is going to be necessary... I said "really" because "nu uh, my mom said..." would also technically be a counterargument, but not really. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 02 2018 14:51 GreenHorizons wrote: It's not a matter of agreement. You're wrong. It is relevant. That you find it irrelevant is a symptom of a much larger problem that I've explained in detail many times. It's like marrying a wealthy person, then murdering them, then collecting the life insurance you took out beforehand and mentioning you're wealthy because you invested your money and spent wisely. Your argument isn't sound. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: I feel this pedantic clarification is going to be necessary... I said "really" because "nu uh, my mom said..." would also technically be a counterargument, but not really. If you'd said "mentioning you're wealthy because you married somebody rich", I might have been fooled into thinking you were fairly representing my argument. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
I think people really underestimate how deeply rooted this stuff is. Take Mr Cooper on CNN for example: It's no surprise that Anderson Cooper is one of the richest news anchors on television. The CNN anchor, who's co-moderating the second presidential debate, is part of the Vanderbilt clan, after all. But Cooper's overall net worth is a bit lower than you would expect from a member of one of America's wealthiest families. Cooper's net worth is an estimated $100 million — more than enough to place him among the top 1 percent of Americans. https://www.bustle.com/articles/188626-anderson-coopers-net-worth-is-probably-not-what-you-expected To continue the verse... Those smiling news presenters They're not reading cue-cards at all They're busy with brush and bucket Whitewashing the company wall It's really just so painfully obvious to me when you look at where the money is and the kind of decisions that are being made. People also underestimate just how much damage has been done through the corporate exploitation that's been happening on behalf of us westerners for a good 300-400 years. Not to mention the fact that climate change is a direct extension of this all. With corporations still covering it all up TO THIS DAY. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 15:04 Aquanim wrote: If you'd said "mentioning you're wealthy because you married somebody rich", I might have been fooled into thinking you were fairly representing my argument. I don't think even that concession would make your argument functional though? The US's exploitation and oppression of people, are under any construction, at least as fundamental as our natural resources and unquestionably more related than our size. At minimum it should have replaced size. But of course it's so fundamental and habitually whitewashed it's omission is more egregious. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On August 02 2018 15:10 a_flayer wrote: Yeah, that's what happened. People married the slaves and through that stole their labor, their culture and their lives. I think people really underestimate how deeply rooted this stuff is. Take Mr Cooper on CNN for example: https://www.bustle.com/articles/188626-anderson-coopers-net-worth-is-probably-not-what-you-expected Those smiling news presenters They're not reading cue-cards at all They're busy with brush and bucket Whitewashing the company wall People also underestimate just how much damage has been done through the corporate exploitation that's been happening on behalf of us westerners for a good 300-400 years. Not to mention the fact that climate change is a direct extension of this all. With corporations still covering it all up TO THIS DAY. I'm not sure you're aware just how few people actually really were able to afford slaves and benefited from it? Owning slaves certainly made some people wealthy, but to say it made the whole country or the average joe wealthy? Come on dude. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On August 02 2018 15:19 hunts wrote: I'm not sure you're aware just how few people actually really were able to afford slaves and benefited from it? Owning slaves certainly made some people wealthy, but to say it made the whole country or the average joe wealthy? Come on dude. slaves basically subsidized all non-slave society | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 02 2018 15:14 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't think even that concession would make your argument functional though? The US's exploitation and oppression of people, are under any construction, at least as fundamental as our natural resources and unquestionably more related than our size. At minimum it should have replaced size. But of course it's so fundamental and habitually whitewashed it's omission is more egregious. I quite agree with you that the United States' exploitation and oppression is fundamental to how it has come to be a superpower. The statement I am attempting to convey (and as far as I know zlefin was as well) is that as well as exploitation, oppression, and having coexistent liberal and conservative areas (which the US has in common with many other non-superpower nations) the United States also possesses a large quantity of natural resources and is "larger" (by some definition) than most other nations, which distinguishes the United States from most to all non-superpower nations (depending how one counts). + Show Spoiler + This also partially depends whether you define "size" in terms of acres or in terms of population that can reasonably be supported. Australia has a lot of acres but a lot of it is desert and irrelevant to pretty much everything. Population size isn't relevant to "wealth" as measured per capita (obviously) but the original conversation was in terms of "superpowers". I don't see Liechtenstein becoming a superpower any time soon. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 15:40 Aquanim wrote: I quite agree with you that the United States' exploitation and oppression is fundamental to how it has come to be a superpower. The statement I am attempting to convey (and as far as I know zlefin was as well) is that as well as exploitation, oppression, and having coexistent liberal and conservative areas (which the US has in common with many other non-superpower nations) the United States also possesses a large quantity of natural resources and is "larger" (by some definition) than most other nations, which distinguishes the United States from most to all non-superpower nations (depending how one counts). + Show Spoiler + This also partially depends whether you define "size" in terms of acres or in terms of population that can reasonably be supported. Australia has a lot of acres but a lot of it is desert and irrelevant to pretty much everything. Population size isn't relevant to "wealth" as measured per capita (obviously) but the original conversation was in terms of "superpowers". I don't see Liechtenstein becoming a superpower any time soon. Japan. Imperialism/colonialism is the most common thread to being a superpower other than developing nuclear technology. As to wealth, exploitation and oppression (of domestic and/or international people), usually starting with conquest is the most common story. zlefin gave us a lazy "luck and hard work" shorthand and someone called him out on it (now like 3 people more or less). Why you felt obligated to interject I don't know. But we're walking a long way with this for what was pretty simple and if not straightforward enough, I clarified, point. As to the "attitude" I know you don't take offence and the habitual whitewashing of history as part of absolving exploiters of guilt, but some people do. That's the luxury of this forum. Instead of most where zlefin/your position would go unchallenged or more hunts like posts would +1 it. If you go back I said "equally palatable" (you edited out the "equally" so you may miss it going back), that wasn't an unimportant qualifier. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
I'll grant you that Japan punches above its weight (although it supports a surprisingly large population) but I don't know that I'd call it a "superpower" per se, now or previously. Imperialism/colonialism is the most common thread to being a superpower other than developing nuclear technology. "Most common characteristic" continues to not be the same thing as "most accurately distinguishing characteristic". The rest of your post is based on the same misrepresentations so I think I'll ignore it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 16:08 Aquanim wrote: I'll grant you that Japan punches above its weight (although it supports a surprisingly large population) but I don't know that I'd call it a "superpower" per se, now or previously. "Most common characteristic" continues to not be the same thing as "most accurately distinguishing characteristic". The rest of your post is based on the same misrepresentations so I think I'll ignore it. removed (don't want it to become about what was here)* If that's your metric surely you don't think size (mostly unrelated coincidence) and natural resources (which super powers are you thinking of without abundant natural resources? Bet they took them from somewhere) are either. On top of that, it's the (not entirely) unique nature in time and method of US exploitation which makes it's omission an egregious offense. EDIT: If a nation is to be a superpower, in the requirements are exploitation and oppression as well as natural resources (domestic or otherwise). What differentiates them generally is when, where, and how those things happened. UK (mostly pillaging Africa) as well as most European countries, for the US, the systematic extermination of the people living here as well as the kidnapping of people and forcing them to labor for other's profit (and habitual aversion to confronting this history) is inextricable from any attempt to explain our wealth, or position in the world. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On August 01 2018 02:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Remember the parties are powerless to control who's in their party, but you can't have a third party because the two parties have all the power. I mean at least p6 is consistent on this not attributing any responsibility to the Republican party for Nazi's running under their banner. It's impossible to make any sense of this stuff sometimes. You can't have a third party because people won't vote for it. There are no rules preventing someone starting a third party. You must know this. The issue to prevent change is most of America is hardcore democrat OR Republican, with little inbetween. In addition, your rules don't allow for coalition governments, do they? It's always a clear winner? The UK has the same problem in theory, in that most households are hardcore one or the other, but there's enough smaller parties bleeding votes that occasionally coalition governments have to happen (the Tories have had to make coalitions with the lib dems and DUP in recent years). P6 seems dead on the money. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23613 Posts
On August 02 2018 18:08 iamthedave wrote: You can't have a third party because people won't vote for it. There are no rules preventing someone starting a third party. You must know this. The issue to prevent change is most of America is hardcore democrat OR Republican, with little inbetween. In addition, your rules don't allow for coalition governments, do they? It's always a clear winner? The UK has the same problem in theory, in that most households are hardcore one or the other, but there's enough smaller parties bleeding votes that occasionally coalition governments have to happen (the Tories have had to make coalitions with the lib dems and DUP in recent years). P6 seems dead on the money. If your intention is to engage with that one phrase in isolation I don't see a reason to, if instead this is your entrance into the greater discussion I'd expect you to engage with the rest of the argument. Which is that parties are mostly powerless (by choice) to control who attaches a D or R to their name, they however wield a great deal of power when it comes to the significance that comes with it, both electorally and legislatively. That is to say that whether a Nazi or a guy Banned from the local mall calls himself a Republican or not they have little influence over, whether he's sponsored/endorsed by the party, given seats and votes, and so on is. So if it's a pedantic point about party membership, then sure, if it's the point that was actually being made, not at all. | ||
| ||
