|
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 05 2018 01:29 chocorush wrote:
Choosing to ignore empirical evidence when making decisions or judgments on real-word issues isn't well reasoned or logical. It's just ignorant.
It also frames changing your views on the world based on personal experience as some sort of weakness. And that people who do change their views only do it so other people are nice to them. The underlying message is that he likely didn't change is world views, only altered how he acted for some benefit. That personal growth and change are just acts we put on to avoid the negative consequences. It is this amazingly cynical view on our connections to other people and self improvement.
|
On October 05 2018 01:39 farvacola wrote:
Yeah he's gonna get confirmed, now we just gotta figure out the next step.
Win back the house? 
Sadly the Senate isnt realistic even with a "blue wave." Get the House though and you can investigate any number of things, from Kavanaugh (unlikely but possible) to Trump (a certainty). Let's see those tax returns! Maybe someone will finally be held accountable.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 01:38 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:16 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 01:07 Mohdoo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 00:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:49 Wegandi wrote:On October 05 2018 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 00:43 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
Can you please quote me where you think I said the hyper-partisanship is fine? I think the SCOTUS is an abomination of an institution and has been for a while. The Executive Branch basically being a proxy for this way too powerful body is also disgusting (but, I generally hold disdain for 99% of the political institutions and politicians anyways).
Also, if that was your point, why the distinction with the GOP today? They're merely doing the same things the Dem's have did, and the GOP before them. Go on all the way back to Marbury v Madison. What is going on today is nothing new. Why be so shocked? I get it. Your side lost. Your mad. Don't you take a moment to reflect on why this makes politics so heinous? Markets and capitalism is cooperation and politics is cut-throat zero-sum. You guys want more politics in our lives - so you get it. Not so fun when you're not controlling it eh? But, of course, us libertarians are the crazy ones.
Also, can you stop calling me conservative lol? This guy who is for open borders, legalization of all vices, and doesn't give a fuck who you fuck is a conservative? Stop trying to fit everyone into some stupid binary category. "Markets and capitalism is cooperation" I can't believe you say this with a straight face. What else is a voluntary transaction if not cooperation? No one forces anyone to do anything in a market economy (and please, don't start giving XYZ examples of non-market activity in our country as evidence of the market being coercive, because on its face it is ridiculous). To the extent that the US does not follow Lockean principles, it is coercive. When they do, it is not. Ah, that sweet sweet libertarian naivete. My favorite joke about libertarianism is that it is astrology for men. And at least Communism worked on paper. I think libertarianism appeals to certain people because it relieves anxiety caused by uncertainty. When a core set of axioms are used to characterize and understand literally everything, it makes the world feel more understandable. This gives people a sense of undue confidence. It is, in many ways, a sign of weakness by needing to feel like we can understand everything by deferring to binary logic. It is an escape from the frustrating nuance of reality. Libertarianism allows people to feel like they understand the world around them. I have a buddy who is a recovering libertarian after 2016. When we talked about it, he said that he realized that it was a political world view that undervalued everyone's plights and the governments ability to address those plights. And because of that, it wasn't a viable political goal. He also had a real problem because being a libertarian made him seem heartless, which bothered him more than anything. It was fine to express those views in college, but once he was out in the world dealing working people facing some real shit, his political views just made him seem like he did not give a fuck at all. So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start. Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy. But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. On October 05 2018 01:27 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 05 2018 01:24 farvacola wrote:
Baldly asserting that libertarianism is based on "well-reasoned ideas and logic" is its own kind of implementation of emotion-based platitudes, so I would bark up a different tree if valid critique is your goal. I don't intend to defend libertarianism, but rather, point out how him presenting his friend as "he had a certain belief system but he abandoned it to be more likable to other people" is a pretty bad reason. The non agression principle is pretty solid. He entered grown up land where people faced adult problems like homelessness and realized that his beliefs formed in high school and college were naive and childish. I'm out of words with your incoherent rant. Yes, making public policy regarding short term gratification of some people (how the people you know personally feel) instead of looking at large scale results, for both the entire population and long term results is pretty damn bad. And man, if you switch your political views so other people like you are REALLY REALLY pathetic. I have lots of empathy for the endless list of countries and people that have been ruined by big government policies. I personally know many Venezuelan inmigrants so leave your judgamental shit out of here.
He isn't a politician, you nugget. He is just a guy. He isn't making public policy. We are talking about a guy who thought the goverment should stay out of everything and then encountered homelessness in rural areas. And after dealing with that for a while, he realized the only teh goverment could make long term systems to help these homeless people because no one else was able to.
He meet people who he respected and valued, and through that he changed his views on the place of goverment over time. The same thing happens to all of us. My views on racism in the US changed from knowing black people and talking to them about racism. That is how we educate ourselves. Your resistance to this type of change only highlights that you are uncomfortable with the idea that someone had their mind changed about their political views.
|
On October 05 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:39 farvacola wrote:
Yeah he's gonna get confirmed, now we just gotta figure out the next step. Win back the house? Sadly the Senate isnt realistic even with a "blue wave." Get the House though and you can investigate any number of things, from Kavanaugh (unlikely but possible) to Trump (a certainty). Let's see those tax returns! Maybe someone will finally be held accountable.
The only benefit to him being confirmed is that it will likely blunt Republican turn out that may have resulted if his confirmation failed. It is hard to stoke outrage if you are getting everything you asked for. But putting BK on the court is going to light a fire on Democratic women who felt this entire confirmation process and investigation was not handled properly. Especially with all the stories about people claiming BK lied about so many things.
|
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 01:15 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:55 Logo wrote:On October 05 2018 00:44 Simberto wrote:
This whole debate made me wonder why we don't have this problem with overly politicized courts in Germany. On the surface, we require 2/3 majority in both houses to confirm judges, so they have to be accepted by most parties, and not just pushed through by one. Then of course we don't have a two-party system, so they can go into more than two directions if they are political.
But that doesn't really explain it either. Up until Gorsuch, judges in the US required 60 votes. Yet this problem has been apparent earlier already, with the Garland sham during Obamas presidency. From what i can tell, it seems to be mostly that german parties choose not to politicize the courts in the same way the US parties do, to the point where they are more happy with no one being on the court than with someone who isn't completely on their side. So in Germany, parties accept middle-ground candidates, while in the US, they don't. This makes me a bit scared that the same shit that you are doing over there could happen here, too. Because i am quite happy with courts that are widely recognized as being impartial, so everyone can respect their decisions.
Because lets be honest, it doesn't matter how this turns out now. The whole process has discredited the US supreme court totally at this point. No matter if Kav gets confirmed or not, from now on on the courts will never be seen as an impartial arbitrator, but instead as basically a stick that one side of your politics can use to beat the other side with. Which might have been the goal from the start. As far as i can tell, US republicans were very unhappy with the role the supreme court has played for a long time. So turning the court in a partisan tool is totally fine for them, because it makes that court less important. I am not well versed on Germany politics, but my understanding is it isn't a 2 party system. That's a big part of why it is happening in the US I think, both from a procedure standpoint and from why the judges are so conservative (or liberal). Like on procedure, in the US you can make any change you want no matter how much it hurts the party out of power (even if it bites you later). But in a multiparty system if you need a coalition to pass legislature, the minority parts of that coalition probably won't want to agree to a bunch of changes that weaken their influence. The 2 parties in America are pretty much the same thing as coalitions. Whether or not the alignments make sense is another issue. That's why you have groups in certain parties constantly voting against their own interests, because they get enough of what they want on other issues the party supports.
A big difference with coalitions in multi-party systems as opposed to a US-style two-party system is that they are fluid. If one coalition doesn't work out for a party, they can try for coalitions with other parties. Meanwhile, the voters still know what they are voting for when they vote for a party. That can even change from state to state.
A big positive of a multi-party system is that you can vote for something, not only against the other guy. If i were in the US, i could basically only vote democrat, because the republicans just look plain evil to me. In Germany, even if i would hate the CDU to a similar degree, i could still decide whether i want to vote for the greens (socially left, obviously very big on ecology), the SPD (traditional center left), the left (pretty leftwing with a bit of class struggle in the program) or the FDP(liberals, but not in the US sense. They are actually pretty close to republicans if you cut out the religiosity) (and i guess recently the disgusting AfD), all of which are parties with very different profiles. So i am not locked into "not republicans", which gives me a far more positive outlook as a whole. Because i can choose what i want, not only what i don't want.
Still, i don't know if that is actually a protection against dissolving into US-style partisanship. Because recently we have a pretty scary right-wing party on the rise here (AfD), which very much do the whole "don't trust anyone but us" spiel, similar to the US republicans, which i view as utterly destructive to democracy. It makes decisions and disagreements no longer about political points and ideas on how to deal with problems, and how to shape society, but instead turns them into disagreements about facts. And it is pretty much impossible to ever have a productive discussion between people who disagree on facts, not on interpretations of these facts and ideas on how to deal with it. As can be seen in this thread.
This development is something i hope can be contained to a small-ish group of the population. Because if it grows out of control like in the US, basically nothing works well anymore, because everything turns partisan.
They are currently only at about 15%, and i very much hope that it stays that way.
|
On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that.
That quote is weird. But I get the impression that he is trying to signal there are other qualified nominees? I think there are a lot of Republicans who wouldn't confirm BK if Trump and the conservatives didn't have such a grip on the party.
|
On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people?
On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology.
You proved his point thoroughly.
You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes.
"Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?"
He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits.
"Emotions have no value?"
He didn't say that either.
"Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?"
He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense.
"I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked."
Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid.
"This undervaluing of empathy."
How?
"But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology."
Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation?
|
On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation?
Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'?
|
On October 05 2018 01:55 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 00:40 On_Slaught wrote:On October 04 2018 23:42 Plansix wrote:
There are currently +650 law professors that don’t think he should be on the bench, citing that he won’t be able to separate his political biases from his rulings. BTW the number of professors who signed that letter saying he is unfit is over 1,700 as of yesterday. I dont know the total number of law professors in the country, but that is a significant chunk. They will be delivering the letter and signatures to the Senate today (and adding more as they come in). Also, 23 of those are from Yale. I'm assuming that having a SCJ from your school is good for the school. So this also seems significant. To me the whole thing is even if he didn't do anything wrong in highschool and college. Is this guy really the best of the best? I hate when I see people get jobs because of who they know instead of merit. This feels like the first case.
Yale has plenty of Supreme Court justices to claim. They can live without this one.
|
On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that.
Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh.
There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation?
I generally don't treat passive aggressive shit posting as something that needs to be rebutted. The value, or lack thereof, the shit post speaks for itself.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 02:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:54 farvacola wrote:
Ben Sasse just publicly stated that he urged Trump to choose someone other than Kav, not sure what to make of that. Every single piece of backlash goes down the toilet if they just use Barrett. It is still so bizarre to me that it needs to be Kavanaugh. There has still not been a single person on this forum to explain why it needs to be Kavanaugh. I'm pretty sure I said it multiple times. The other options are not willing to sell out to the Party as blatantly.
The WH is not looking for a competent SC judge that leans their way politically. They are looking for a puppet.
|
On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'?
That would be an improvement.
Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements.
I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation.
|
On October 05 2018 01:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 01:44 On_Slaught wrote:On October 05 2018 01:39 farvacola wrote:
Yeah he's gonna get confirmed, now we just gotta figure out the next step. Win back the house? Sadly the Senate isnt realistic even with a "blue wave." Get the House though and you can investigate any number of things, from Kavanaugh (unlikely but possible) to Trump (a certainty). Let's see those tax returns! Maybe someone will finally be held accountable. The only benefit to him being confirmed is that it will likely blunt Republican turn out that may have resulted if his confirmation failed. It is hard to stoke outrage if you are getting everything you asked for. But putting BK on the court is going to light a fire on Democratic women who felt this entire confirmation process and investigation was not handled properly. Especially with all the stories about people claiming BK lied about so many things.
To be fair, recent polling has shown an increase in Republican involvement due to this mess (tho certainly not as high as if he had been withdrawn). This is to be expected but I think it will end up being outweighed by the liberals, in particular women, it drives out to vote on top of the independent women it turned away from the Republican ballot.
|
On October 05 2018 02:08 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 02:02 IyMoon wrote:On October 05 2018 01:58 PeTraSoHot wrote:On October 05 2018 01:21 GoTuNk! wrote:
So he abandoned well-reasoned ideas and logic to replace then with emotion based platitudes to look more likable to a new group of people? On October 05 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
There is so much to unpack here I don't even know where to start.
Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now? Emotions have no value? Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable? I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked. This undervaluing of empathy.
But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology. You proved his point thoroughly. You did not rebut anything he said, but instead imagined that he said a bunch of things he did not say and then rattled off a bunch of platitudes. "Valuing the opinions, views and plights of others is illogical now?" He did not say that. However, to value some opinions or views would be illogical. Not all opinions and views have value. Different opinions and views have varying degrees of value based on their merits. "Emotions have no value?" He didn't say that either. "Caring about other people is now viewed as platitudes to appear more likable?" He didn't say that either. That doesn't even make sense. "I love your framing that him caring about his connection to other people is some form of performance to be liked." Is that hard to believe? It happens a lot. Sometimes the situation is different. We did not get thorough context on the specific situation presented to know one way or another. A lack of context can seem suggestive towards his spin, but yours is certainly no more valid. "This undervaluing of empathy." How? "But real talk, he grew up and decided to put away childish things like selfish ideology." Was that productive? Is it productive to call him childish and selfish? How about if I call you a delusional psychopath.. is that forwarding a productive conversation? Would you prefer P6 just said. 'No, that is 100% wrong and idk how you have that line of thinking'? That would be an improvement. Instead, asserting that 'Views and opinions of others have value', 'Emotions have value', and 'Caring about other people is not a performance to be liked' are so vague that they are meaningless statements. I am curious to hear why people on the left reject libertarian belief. The issue was raised, and rejected based on empty slogans and intentional (?) misinterpretation.
Sure, let me answer in the way you would of liked p6 to answer.
People reject libertarian beliefs because they are fucking stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
