Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1326327329331332694

Comments

  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768

    @Balrog99 I'm only center-left, so I agree that this hypothetical worker visa would have to make the holders exempt from minimum wage and benefits rules or it wouldn't work. Worker safety and workers comp should still apply though.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019

    >>I'd just like to consider one aspect: How did I earn the right to have access to free education, good health care, the possibility to go to college although my parents had problems paying the bills at the end of the month, and now have a good job with a secure future for me and my family? Did I do anything to deserve that right?

    >>No. I was just lucky to have been born in a country where this is considered normal. At least for citizens of said country.

    @Arvia I feel exactly the same, actually. I've been reminding me for a long while that everything I have is by fortune's blessing, not because I have some mysterious right to it.


    >>So, they should be grateful for that, because it's better than what they had in Mali or wherever they came from? Or shouldn't their "employer" be ashamed to make a profit that way? Isn't my wish to buy cheaper vegetables also part of that chain?

    >>Nobody wants to do their job. So, give them the right to immigrate legally, and then you give them equal pay with equal rights, and punish the employer who kept modern slaves, not the person who worked hard and only wanted a future.

    Ashamed they certainly should be. But be judged for taking advantage of situation when someone's willing to accept such terms? Please.


    PS Kill wysiwyg with fire.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2019

    This is at least the 3rd or 4th article like this in the last 6 months, this one easily twice as bad as the last two:



    I continue to be absolutely astounded at how little play this gets considering what we're talking about on a weekly basis with this guy. It's absolutely ridiculous. His #1 issue is complete and utter bullshit. Again, he is PERSONALLY contributing and causing exactly what he rails against day after day. And no one cares. So what does that say about what this is REALLY about?? You cannot possibly be a supporter of this man and defend this with a straight face given the current dynamic around this topic. The only possible tactic in such a situation would be to yell "Squirrel!!" or just go full Wizard of Oz and say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2019

    If I hadn't just plopped down $100 for Borderlands 3 and the Season Pass, I might be inclined to donate to Andrew Yang based on that comment, but seeing as he's made the 3rd debate threshold, I guess he'll be ok. He won't win the nomination, but I would definitely want him in some Cabinet position most befitting his talents. He is also the LAST who will likely qualify, meaning the field has been mercifully whittled down to 9 for all intents and purposes.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    edited August 2019
    Not really political, but thought this was an interesting article about Heavy.com. That's the website that kept popping up when I was googling for info about the shooters last weekend. There's a reason I've never heard of it apparently...

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/technology/2017/03/heavy-com-five-fast-facts-you-need-to-know.amp

    I actually liked the articles I found. They were a little choppy, like written in haste without editing, but they also were just reporting the facts, not trying so hard to shape opinion like most news agencies these days.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    If I hadn't just plopped down $100 for Borderlands 3 and the Season Pass, I might be inclined to donate to Andrew Yang based on that comment, but seeing as he's made the 3rd debate threshold, I guess he'll be ok. He won't win the nomination, but I would definitely want him in some Cabinet position most befitting his talents. He is also the LAST who will likely qualify, meaning the field has been mercifully whittled down to 9 for all intents and purposes.

    It might be a blessing in disguise to not be invited to this debate.

    A candidate on the outside looking in (such as Gabbard) can live tweet rebuttals to everything that is being said to raise her numbers for the October poll. If she does it smartly, news organizations can pick it up and write just about her tweets in an article while the 9 debaters are still fighting for sound bites to be mentioned in one article.

    You can stand out more by not being invited if you do it properly, not complain about it being invited and offer critique while it’s happening.
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    @deltago: I'm skeptical. A TV debate does require a lot of extra work and it puts you on the spot, but you'll usually get a lot more valuable exposure on TV than social media like Twitter simply because Twitter is vast and people on the peripheries won't necessarily see your message at all--much of your audience on Twitter will be people who follow folks in your circle. Contrast that with TV, where showing up on a major network gives you a vast audience with a broader background. A single voice on Twitter only gets amplified by the number of retweets and followers; a single voice on a major TV network doesn't have to rely on a viral hook for millions of people to see it.

    Plus, a tweet is pretty easy for the audience to forget. A soundbite is much more memorable.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137
    Since it has come up in this thread before and vegetarianism is wrapped up with political identity: I just tried an Impossible Whopper, and it was pretty good! Maybe not quite as much taste to the patty, but they really nailed the texture. I'm not sure you'd notice the difference if you were served one without being told.
  • MathsorcererMathsorcerer Member Posts: 3,044
    I'd also like to see wealthy, MAGA-hat wearing business owners and congressmen get arrested on live t.v for hiring illegal labor. It's only right to target the primary beneficiaries, and the ones who incentivize it the most.

    Like I said, make "hiring an illegal immigrant" a subset of "aiding and abetting in human trafficking" and you will see things change relatively quickly.

    *************

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    joluv wrote: »
    Since it has come up in this thread before and vegetarianism is wrapped up with political identity: I just tried an Impossible Whopper, and it was pretty good! Maybe not quite as much taste to the patty, but they really nailed the texture. I'm not sure you'd notice the difference if you were served one without being told.

    Is it as tasty though...? Whoppers have a lot of meat (compared to a Big-Mac, for instance) so they would definitely be a good taste-test subject...
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    edited August 2019
    I'd also like to see wealthy, MAGA-hat wearing business owners and congressmen get arrested on live t.v for hiring illegal labor. It's only right to target the primary beneficiaries, and the ones who incentivize it the most.

    Like I said, make "hiring an illegal immigrant" a subset of "aiding and abetting in human trafficking" and you will see things change relatively quickly.

    *************

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.

    She did not throw voters under the bus, she called out New York's draconian voting laws. Compared to a lot of the country she's right - New York is a bit behind on voting rights.


    She went through a lot of crap just making the ballot last election because the political machine does not make it easy to challenge the status quo. She did not mention her friend.

    She will easily win reelection despite the strawman attacks from Republican propagandists. Her popularity is higher than ever after the latest Trump attacks.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    joluv wrote: »
    Since it has come up in this thread before and vegetarianism is wrapped up with political identity: I just tried an Impossible Whopper, and it was pretty good! Maybe not quite as much taste to the patty, but they really nailed the texture. I'm not sure you'd notice the difference if you were served one without being told.

    Actually if you want this to be political, you can wrap your head around the “what do you call ice cream, that is animal free?”

    https://nationalpost.com/news/lab-grown-ice-cream-presents-a-labelling-challenge-for-canadian-dairy

    The dairy farmers here are sticklers to labeling.

    The same argument happened when Beyond Meat launched (similar to the Whopper, but A&W and Tim Horton’s based) and of they were allowed to label it “meat” even though it didn’t come from a carcass of a dead animal.(it didn’t go anywhere though).
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    edited August 2019
    Arvia wrote: »
    And several of those countries are in disastrous conditions also because of our colonialism in the past, and our economy that exploits their resources, and exported weapons that are used in civil wars.
    .

    A LOT of African countries din't got colonized and a lot of European Countries din't had any colonies, like Switzerland. In fact, Russia during USSR regime colonized half of Europe and isn't an high income country. Latvia is Richer tahn Russia despite being colonized. Singapore was one of the poorest countries and now is richer than most of "west". Bermuda is a British territory and is richer in GDP per capita than UK. Argentina in 1910 was Richer than US and now is much more poor.

    As for weapons, wrong again. Why there are an civil war in the first place?

    The real problem of ""west"" is the exportation of communist and socialist ideas. It lead to civil war and other big problems.

    Mainly after the French revolution. It leaded to the creation of the most awful thing ever. The modern "rational' state.
    Post edited by SorcererV1ct0r on
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.
    I have absolutely no idea how the above quote could possibly constitute throwing Democratic voters under the bus. It's the exact opposite: she's criticizing voting laws that disenfranchise voters.

    Could you please explain your reasoning here? I honestly don't understand how opposing voter disenfranchisement is equal to hurting voters.
  • SkatanSkatan Member, Moderator Posts: 5,352

    Mainly after the French revolution. It leaded to the creation of the most awful thing ever. The modern "rational' state.

    I don't understand your point. These countries in Europe who adopted some/all of these french ideas ("rational" states) are now the most stable and economically and socially stable countries in the world.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited August 2019
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.
    I have absolutely no idea how the above quote could possibly constitute throwing Democratic voters under the bus. It's the exact opposite: she's criticizing voting laws that disenfranchise voters.

    Could you please explain your reasoning here? I honestly don't understand how opposing voter disenfranchisement is equal to hurting voters.

    It's hard to know what happened here. Tiffany Caban, a staunch progressive, originally was thought to have won the primary on the night of against the "machine" candidate, but much or, it turns out, ALL of their lead was subject to provisional ballots and also the fact that alot of the outstanding ballots came in later for her opponent, Melinda Katz. The Caban campaign is saying most of their votes were thrown out on technicalities, like not filling in the party affiliation line. But since it IS a primary, that line IS technically required to be filled out. On one hand, yeah, it's pretty shady by the Katz campaign, but on the other hand, the Caban campaign had no business declaring victory with such a slim margin and ballots left to be counted that would likely skew toward her opponent. Now, the narrative is a robbery, when the truth is muddier. I wish Caban had won too, but they counted their eggs before they hatched. This was a matter of a recount and all the votes coming in not going her way. That she came within 55 votes of winning is a rough pill to swallow for sure, but New York IS a closed primary, and filling out the party affiliation section is there to prevent sabotage from the other side:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/nyregion/tiffany-caban-queens-da-concedes.html

    Again, I was hearing about this weeks ago on Twitter (it is a New York City party primary after all, it isn't going to make national news) and even at that time, it was clear Katz had gained the advantage and she was in the cat bird's seat. The progressive wing of the party is ascendant, this is a loss on paper but still another big achievement to get so close. They need to take this one on the chin and move on, and I replied as such to alot of progressive activists at the time.
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    Then the people entering the country should do it legally.

    The people being detained at the border having their families split up are legally seeking asylum. They're not here illegally and they're not breaking any laws.

    Also, being in the country without the proper paperwork is a misdemeanor, not a felony, nor should it lead to indefinite detention and having your children stolen.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    Skatan wrote: »

    Mainly after the French revolution. It leaded to the creation of the most awful thing ever. The modern "rational' state.

    I don't understand your point. These countries in Europe who adopted some/all of these french ideas ("rational" states) are now the most stable and economically and socially stable countries in the world.

    Not true. Compare the German empire with Weimar republic or the national socialist dictatorship who lead to ww2. Compare USSR with Russian empire. Compare the most tyrannical French king with Napoleon. Liechtenstein remains an monarchy until this day and is pretty successful.
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,659
    edited August 2019

    Not true. Compare the German empire with Weimar republic or the national socialist dictatorship who lead to ww2. Compare USSR with Russian empire. Compare the most tyrannical French king with Napoleon. Liechtenstein remains an monarchy until this day and is pretty successful.

    You didn't really make an argument that addressed his point at all

    As @Grond0 noted, just about all of Africa was subject to colonization. Read up on the Berlin Conference, where Africa was partitioned between European powers.

    Plenty of Asia was colonized as well. That colonization looks different, but it existed - see the Philippines, Siam, Australia, Japan's occupation of China and Korea. India is considered part of Asia, and was colonized by the U.K.

    Comparing Bermuda GDP per capita isn't useful because of the relative size of population.

    Modern governance based on the ideals of the enlightenment were established due to revolutions of the 18th and 19 century.
  • BelleSorciereBelleSorciere Member Posts: 2,108
    Skatan wrote: »

    Mainly after the French revolution. It leaded to the creation of the most awful thing ever. The modern "rational' state.

    I don't understand your point. These countries in Europe who adopted some/all of these french ideas ("rational" states) are now the most stable and economically and socially stable countries in the world.

    Not true. Compare the German empire with Weimar republic or the national socialist dictatorship who lead to ww2. Compare USSR with Russian empire. Compare the most tyrannical French king with Napoleon. Liechtenstein remains an monarchy until this day and is pretty successful.

    It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.
    I have absolutely no idea how the above quote could possibly constitute throwing Democratic voters under the bus. It's the exact opposite: she's criticizing voting laws that disenfranchise voters.

    Could you please explain your reasoning here? I honestly don't understand how opposing voter disenfranchisement is equal to hurting voters.

    When Trump loses his home state in 2020, expect him to dust off this OAC post to scream foul and how if New York wasn’t such a rigged state, with millions of illegals voting, he would have won it in a landslide.

    If he loses by 29 or less Electoral votes, expect right wing media to run with it.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    deltago wrote: »
    semiticgod wrote: »
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had this to say about New York Democrats:

    "Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given. Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis. New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it's poll locations changes, whether it's having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you're a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race, but it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law."

    Remember this quote next November, Democrat voters in New York, and vote accordingly. She just threw you under the bus because her friend did not win her primary runoff.
    I have absolutely no idea how the above quote could possibly constitute throwing Democratic voters under the bus. It's the exact opposite: she's criticizing voting laws that disenfranchise voters.

    Could you please explain your reasoning here? I honestly don't understand how opposing voter disenfranchisement is equal to hurting voters.

    When Trump loses his home state in 2020, expect him to dust off this OAC post to scream foul and how if New York wasn’t such a rigged state, with millions of illegals voting, he would have won it in a landslide.

    If he loses by 29 or less Electoral votes, expect right wing media to run with it.

    No matter what happens the right wing will lie about it. If he wins they'll lie. If he loses they'll lie.

    Right wing media invents stories and spins everything.
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176
    Skatan wrote: »

    Mainly after the French revolution. It leaded to the creation of the most awful thing ever. The modern "rational' state.

    I don't understand your point. These countries in Europe who adopted some/all of these french ideas ("rational" states) are now the most stable and economically and socially stable countries in the world.

    Not true. Compare the German empire with Weimar republic or the national socialist dictatorship who lead to ww2. Compare USSR with Russian empire. Compare the most tyrannical French king with Napoleon. Liechtenstein remains an monarchy until this day and is pretty successful.

    It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.

    Depends the definition of "socialism". IMO if the state controls the means of production, doesn't matter if is a direct control or control via regulation/intervention, is socialism. And yes, every country on earth has some degree of socialism. Socialism is like an cancer, spreads too quickly and less cancerous cells the body have, more healthy he is...

    And nazis like any type of group who advocate for "identity politics" ends in a complex situation. "who is aryan"? They wrote an complex Nuremberg Law to determine who is eligible and who is not to German citizenship and the result? An ethnic group born in left of an artificial line got the Aryan certificate and an ethnic group who was born in the right of an artificial line was considered "Slavic", note that the word "slave" originate from Slav... ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeranians_(German_people) )

    The same thing happens with every type of identity politics. I was born with blonde hair(now unfortunately is no long blonde and Chamomile din't solved the problem), have pale skin, an 1,85m tall(6' 1"), with broad shoulders and have an slave owning baron ancestor but would be eligible to affirmative action programs in US sole by my birthplace. And an Polish American would be non eligible, doesn't matter if his parents got enslaved by Germans and Russians and FDR betrayed then and sold then like slaves to Russia.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,669
    International law, UN declarations, are all a complete joke. Are the UN police going to come and enforce their declarations on the U.S, let alone North Korea, Israel, China, etc? No. They have as much worth as my declarations on this forum, and are treated as such internationally.

    The only international law that anyone really cares about is trade law, and that's the simple truth.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,669
    edited August 2019
    It's okay, you can say "Nazi" and admit that Nazis weren't socialist at all.

    They were, the basic definition of socialism was part of their platform, but so what? It's just silly to paint an entire economic train of thought as somehow inherently genocidal based on one subsection of it led by one fanatical leader. Those guilt by association tactics are almost always nonsense.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    edited August 2019
    So the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea, is a democratic Republic because it's part of their official name you know.
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,669
    edited August 2019
    I don't see any reason to think their economic vision wasn't entirely sincere. It's not like they would be the only one of their kind in history. To be fair we can't know, since they had a short wartime existence and then faded out. But I find the flat denialism lacking in justification.
Sign In or Register to comment.