|
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 |
On October 01 2018 10:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2018 06:15 Taelshin wrote:
If you were being accused of rape and possible attempted murder from 36 years ago with out any proof or tangible evidence how would you react? @plansix. I thought his testimony was fine considering the situation. Talking to some more of my left leaning friends they are already on the same train your on, " The even if he didn't try to rape anyone we cant have a loose cannon like that on the SC train ". I know id be pretty fired up if I was getting falsely accused of heinous crimes. Are you a judge being interviewed for a job on the Supreme Court? Its an exceptional position requiring exceptional people. Well he's about to undergo his 7th FBI background check. Meanwhile Ford will have her first. Just a hunch, they will find far more dirt on Ford, just depends on whether the biased mainstream media will even report on it or whether they will usher her quietly away and accept the inevitable. Is dirt on Ford relevant?
Is she also applying for the position of SC judge?
No, shes not. Its doesn't matter if she has a gambling debt, or or a boyfriend on the side or likes to dress up and pretend to be a man.
This is an investigation in whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted Ford.
Any dirt that doesn't bring her testimony into question is irrelevant to this case.
|
Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions quietly continue their state funded child abuse program, creating test cities and detaining children well beyond what is legal. Of course the courts have been ruling against the administration in a lot of cases, but from most reports they are legal services are completely overwhelmed.
|
On October 01 2018 10:14 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 06:19 Gorsameth wrote:On October 01 2018 06:15 Taelshin wrote:
If you were being accused of rape and possible attempted murder from 36 years ago with out any proof or tangible evidence how would you react? @plansix. I thought his testimony was fine considering the situation. Talking to some more of my left leaning friends they are already on the same train your on, " The even if he didn't try to rape anyone we cant have a loose cannon like that on the SC train ". I know id be pretty fired up if I was getting falsely accused of heinous crimes. Are you a judge being interviewed for a job on the Supreme Court? Its an exceptional position requiring exceptional people. Well he's about to undergo his 7th FBI background check. Meanwhile Ford will have her first. Just a hunch, they will find far more dirt on Ford, just depends on whether the biased mainstream media will even report on it or whether they will usher her quietly away and accept the inevitable.
luckily Ford isn’t up for the supreme court, so who gives a fuck? unless you’re looking for more character assassination, details of Fords life outside the event alleged is entirely irrelevant lol.
|
On October 01 2018 14:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 14:29 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
I wanted to ask Introvert in the thread I read it in, but that would be off-topic. I'm moving this question here because I want to truly understand your position, and that's not something that should be done in website feedback.
Intro, you mentioned Chesterton's fence. If you agree with that concept, I would like you to explain how the overall trend of history is still consistent with it; additionally, how it pertains to the United States now.
From my (admittedly young and probably uninformed) perspective, I see many things as having gotten better for the average citizen over time. I see Chesterton's fence, and I look at gay marriage; further back, I would see divine right and lack of suffrage, and even farther still, how the Roman Empire originally dealt with Christianity.
I would imagine that the above positions that were cast aside as being on this fence back then, but I can't think of any examples where changing traditions has been significantly worse than what I see as stagnation. To me, the concept of this fence seems to be in the way of progress. Obviously, you even bringing it up means you have a different view, and I don't like the certainty I have in that belief that it's dumb. That certainty, while reassuring, also feels dangerous; if I decide to further cement my ill-informed opinion, I fear that I will become one of the things I dislike, that being an adult with a closed mind and unshakeable beliefs, closed to questions and challenges.
Feel free to rip my previous opinion apart as much as you want, since I know that it's never even been exposed to the other side. Thank you. Quite a thing to drop on Sunday night! To be (very) brief.. Suffice it to say for now that I dont think you are looking deeply enough. Things like gay marriage are on the periphery, the more foundational "tradition", in your example, would be marriage itself. Same with suffrage. Conservatives dont oppose advancement or altering traditions, but throwing them out or making serious alterations with no thought of why they exist, and how they managed to survive, is a concern that is a central part of the analysis. For perhaps it is with the aid of these traditions that we advance at all, layers building on each other. In particular many people would actually give great credit to the Church and Christianity generally on that count, a very traditional yet steadily advancing institution. Such an explanation might seem to be too broad, maybe, to be of use. But take as an example the sexual revolution of the last century. Maybe you don't see it this way, but it seems that among some good that was done, great harm was as well. Not enough thought, or consideration for why things were the way they were, may have slingshot us too far in the other direction. My point here is not to argue the merits of that argument, but to present it as an example of a type. If you could conceive that it is at least possible that it went to far, then you should be able to apply it to other things as well. In fact, reading Chesterton would do you a world of good on that score  much of his writing is amazingly relevant, considering it was a century ago. reply here or PM and I'll see what I can do.
That's not a great surprise re: relevance of thought.
Most old philosophers are still very relevant today. Karl Marx's writings on class struggle are pretty much spot on, Sun Tzu's Art of War remains one of the greatest fundamental tactical manuals ever assembled, and I recently found a reading of Socrates' politics very insightful.
Though concerning Chesterton's fence, I think a lot of people who use the argument often don't extend their own thoughts far enough (i.e. they know why they think the fence is there, but not why it was actually put there; I wonder how many people who defend marriage vociferously realise that one of the points of marriage was the transmission and retention of property? Hence, restrictions on marriage make sense because it keeps property from getting into the hands of people who you don't want having it).
One problem the old philosophers have in general is that, as sound as their argumentative principles are, they rarely take into account the high likelihood of idiots latching onto them and making them invalid as a consequence. I think Macchiavelli's one of the few who did, since he specifically wrote about the consequences of doing as he suggested while being a dumbass (even though The Prince, his most famous work, is mostly thought to be satire).
|
On October 01 2018 19:17 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions quietly continue their state funded child abuse program, creating test cities and detaining children well beyond what is legal. Of course the courts have been ruling against the administration in a lot of cases, but from most reports they are legal services are completely overwhelmed. https://twitter.com/jessicabennett/status/1046406590205755392
Do people know where these centers are? Are there any protests about them going on?
|
On October 01 2018 21:00 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 19:17 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions quietly continue their state funded child abuse program, creating test cities and detaining children well beyond what is legal. Of course the courts have been ruling against the administration in a lot of cases, but from most reports they are legal services are completely overwhelmed. https://twitter.com/jessicabennett/status/1046406590205755392 Do people know where these centers are? Are there any protests about them going on?
My understanding is that all these camps are remote and in areas that are hard to protest or report on. One of them is in a desert. ICE is the opposite of transparent as well. That is why they transported these children in the middle of the night. They know congress won’t stop them if they keep their heads down and off the front page of the news.
|
On October 01 2018 19:17 Plansix wrote:Meanwhile, Trump and Sessions quietly continue their state funded child abuse program, creating test cities and detaining children well beyond what is legal. Of course the courts have been ruling against the administration in a lot of cases, but from most reports they are legal services are completely overwhelmed. https://twitter.com/jessicabennett/status/1046406590205755392
I think "tent camp" is putting it dangerously lightly. This is a very scary and sad piece of news to be starting my day with. That's a full on internment camp. We're doing that again. That's happening.
|
If Trudeau had half the balls of his old man he'd break up the Bell/Rogers Media Duo-opoly ( is that even a word ); He'd give big US ISP/Cable/Smartphone/Landphone suppliers access to Canada's market. He can then use this as a bargaining chip to get concessions on other issues with the USA. Bell and Rogers don't need protection. They'll do just fine with out it. If Trudeau successfully leverages that concession he can give Canadian companies advantages no other non-American company has.
However, Trudeau doesn't have the balls or savvy to pull this off.
|
These trade deals need to be passed by the US congress before they got into effect. Trudeau is not only limited by the politics within Canada, but also what can pass both chambers of the US congress. It isn’t just him and Trump shaking hands and declaring NAFTA 2.0.
|
The amount of effort and goodwill expended on fairly minor revisions and rebranding of NAFTA doesn't seem worth it. Though with the way Trump has been pissing away those things, this might actually be one of his better efforts, relatively speaking. This is kinda like of telling your best friends that from now on you're going to keep a exact tally of how much booze they drink at your house and you at theirs and you'll settle up on it each month, because you drink less at their places so it's not fair. They'll probably go along with it, but the friendship takes a big hit.
Meanwhile the real trade war with China goes on.
|
|
|
Holy fuck am I seeing an actual concentration camp in America in 2018???
|
Flake said during an interview this weekend that lying to the committee would be enough for him to vote no. I think the FBI investigation serves two purposes, to investigate the facts and to give senators time to discuss how Kavanaugh behaved during the hearing. Because he seems to be telling a lot of little white lies about his past while under oath.
On October 01 2018 23:10 solidbebe wrote:
Holy fuck am I seeing an actual concentration camp in America in 2018???
I would put it up there with the camps we created for Japanese citizens during WW2.
|
On October 01 2018 23:01 Plansix wrote:
These trade deals need to be passed by the US congress before they got into effect. Trudeau is not only limited by the politics within Canada, but also what can pass both chambers of the US congress. It isn’t just him and Trump shaking hands and declaring NAFTA 2.0.
if Trudeau holds a majority in parliament he is not "limited by politics" in Canada. Case in point, Mulroney passed the GST with a majority government. At the time it was passed the GST stood at 7%. As long as there is a big consensus amongst US politicians that they want access to Canada's media market .. and that has been the case since cable was invented ...then the US will grant concessions in the other direction.
i could see a great visionary like Pierre Elliot Trudeau pulling this off... or a savvy political veteran like Jean Chretien. I can't see Justin making anything like this happen. he just talks a big game... he doesn't make big moves. This is unfortunate because he has a dance partner willing to play "Let's Make A Deal".
|
On October 01 2018 23:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 23:01 Plansix wrote:
These trade deals need to be passed by the US congress before they got into effect. Trudeau is not only limited by the politics within Canada, but also what can pass both chambers of the US congress. It isn’t just him and Trump shaking hands and declaring NAFTA 2.0. if Trudeau holds a majority in parliament he is not "limited by politics" in Canada. Case in point, Mulroney passed the GST with a majority government. At the time it was passed the GST stood at 7%. As long as there is a big consensus amongst US politicians that they want access to Canada's media market .. and that has been the case since cable was invented ...then the US will grant concessions in the other direction.
But that still needs to translate into 60 senators voting yes on the deal. Upsetting the current status quo in trade is what made the first NAFTA such a struggle to pass. The same still holds true, even more so because of how politically active each trading sector is.
|
On October 01 2018 23:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 23:20 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On October 01 2018 23:01 Plansix wrote:
These trade deals need to be passed by the US congress before they got into effect. Trudeau is not only limited by the politics within Canada, but also what can pass both chambers of the US congress. It isn’t just him and Trump shaking hands and declaring NAFTA 2.0. if Trudeau holds a majority in parliament he is not "limited by politics" in Canada. Case in point, Mulroney passed the GST with a majority government. At the time it was passed the GST stood at 7%. As long as there is a big consensus amongst US politicians that they want access to Canada's media market .. and that has been the case since cable was invented ...then the US will grant concessions in the other direction. But that still needs to translate into 60 senators voting yes on the deal. Upsetting the current status quo in trade is what made the first NAFTA such a struggle to pass. The same still holds true, even more so because of how politically active each trading sector is.
P.E.T. re-engineered Canada/USA relations from the bottom up dodging through the obstacle course of Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan and several big left-right shifts in the US political landscape.. Justin ain't even 1% of his father. so it won't matter. Justin can't even handle Trump.
|
|
|
Didn't Trudeau do the trade agreement with the EU? Or was that allready basically done and he only had to sign it?
|
On October 01 2018 23:40 Velr wrote:
Didn't Trudeau do the trade agreement with the EU? Or was that allready basically done and he only had to sign it?
yes, however, its not nearly as big of a trading relationship as the Canada/US trade relationship. A Canada/USA trade deal is far more important to Canada. Hopefully, its important to the USA as well.
i can't really say how good Trump or past presidents have been at dealing with Canada. That's up to you guys to decide. However, if i were to assign a letter grade to how Justin Trudeau has dealt with the USA so far i'd give him a "C". By comparison I'd give past prime minister Pierre Trudeau an "A+" and past prime minister Jean Chretien an "A". i'd give most recent former PM Stephen Harper a "B".
the difference between genius and average is stark... and its sad to watch.
|
On October 01 2018 23:34 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2018 23:12 Plansix wrote:Flake said during an interview this weekend that lying to the committee would be enough for him to vote no. I think the FBI investigation serves two purposes, to investigate the facts and to give senators time to discuss how Kavanaugh behaved during the hearing. Because he seems to be telling a lot of little white lies about his past while under oath. On October 01 2018 23:10 solidbebe wrote:
Holy fuck am I seeing an actual concentration camp in America in 2018???
I would put it up there with the camps we created for Japanese citizens during WW2. I'm interested to see if Reps will get the FBI to investigate any Dems in a sorta of Tit for Tat. I was reading some conservative opinion pieces about who they should. I actually think it would be great if the parties went at each other in this way. I don't care what party they are with, if they are corrupt than GTFO. I think it would end up being overall a great thing because they would root out some, and it might make people think twice in the future.
It will just end up being scorched earth, where they both investigate each other for political reasons until both sides have no desire to continue. It will selectively root out corruption for political gain, rather than root out corruption based on reports of corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
