hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2501 of 2787 FirstFirst ... 150120012401245124912498249925002501250225032504251125512601 ... LastLast
Results 50,001 to 50,020 of 55729

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #50001
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    16,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    My point is that the ACLU was not founded as a general purpose civil rights shop. It was founded in the early 20th century to defend anarchists, communists, and socialists from prosecution under the Sedition and Espionage acts. It then purged its leadership of leftists in the middle of the century, embraced liberalism, stopped defending the speech communists and socialists (remember when they refused to defend Paul Robeson?), and began defending Nazis.

    Funny how that works.
    Yes it moved on to become a general purpose civil rights shop because everyone's civil rights are important. And that even means people we despise.

    If you weren't such a tankie, you'd understand that.
    Not a fan of Karl Popper, eh? Or John Rawls? C'mon, everybody loves John Rawls!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

    Some views do not deserve a platform.
    Jeff. Sessions.

    Once you create an infrastructure and tradition of the government de-platforming certain people and views, it can be handed off to people who do not have good intentions. You are seriously crazy if you would ever trust the US government to this.
    Who said anything about government de-platforming certain people and views? That's the job of the citizenry, not the government.
    I'm not going to bother if you keep moving the goal posts.
    If you re-read the back and forth, you moved the goal posts actually, I agree with both of you on separate points, more with Lachesis, but you and elmicker are not addressing the fact the ACLU has defended speech associated with Nazi/fascist movements, which he hasn't said is outright wrong or he wishes to remove, but rather that they DON'T extend that to all citizens in reality.

    If you feel OK with the ACLU's history of not standing up for socialists and communists, but feel ok about them doing the aforementioned, you have a lot of logic holes in the brain case. That's the statement he's making and you seem to either be avoiding it, or missing it entirely while making other valid points.

    I agree the government should not have the power to deplatform, but sadly they are doing so now, have done so already and will continue to until they are replaced.
    I would think the fact that the ACLU added a moderate Muslim group whose purpose was to prevent/eliminate extremist Muslim groups recruitment and violence was listed as an anti-muslim hate group which took losing a lawsuit to correct shines a light on what has gone wrong with the ACLU.

    Edit: Disregard post that was the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) not the ACLU. Disregard post etc etc.
    Last edited by Tellenta; July 3 2018 at 11:42:46 AM.

  2. #50002
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  3. #50003
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    What you said but Matt Taibi does it better
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  4. #50004
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,987
    On USA defence spending:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illion-666079/

    "The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion)."


    "Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you’ll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how “unrealistic” the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay.

    Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending “unrealistic.” Not even when Donald Trump wants them. "


    Fuck me sideways i am in the wrong trade.
    Last edited by Sacul; July 3 2018 at 12:56:30 PM.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  5. #50005
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    What you said but Matt Taibi does it better
    Speaking of which.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  6. #50006
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    994
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    On USA defence spending:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illion-666079/

    "The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion)."

    "Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you’ll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how “unrealistic” the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay.

    Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending “unrealistic.” Not even when Donald Trump wants them. "

    Fuck me sideways i am in the wrong trade.
    While huge, just remember that overall (in terms of % of GDP) military spending has been declining since the end of the cold war:

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...lse&start=1960

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  7. #50007
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    This Steve Schmidt guy is pretty outspoken ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  8. #50008
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    On USA defence spending:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illion-666079/

    "The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion)."

    "Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you’ll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how “unrealistic” the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay.

    Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending “unrealistic.” Not even when Donald Trump wants them. "

    Fuck me sideways i am in the wrong trade.
    While huge, just remember that overall (in terms of % of GDP) military spending has been declining since the end of the cold war:

    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator...lse&start=1960
    Yeah, because the cold war, you know, ended?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  9. #50009
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    This is broadly the point I was trying to make but am afraid to do so online.

  10. #50010
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    This is broadly the point I was trying to make but am afraid to do so online.
    As said by an apparently extremist authoretarian (seriously?): the only thing to fear is fear itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  11. #50011
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,535
    We also call it Soccer. Not Futball.

    So there is that too.


  12. #50012
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,546
    I never said FDR was an extremist?

    I did say he is regarded by more than a few historians as an authoritarian. Which is true. You can say “nih uh, he wasn’t!” if you want and make the argument, and that’s fine.

    This was offered as a claim that authoritarianism isn’t universally negative, and is occasionally necessary to deal with historical speed-bumps like the Great Depression and the Nazis.

  13. #50013
    Sacul's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Hollandistan
    Posts
    6,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    I think liberal means something vastly different to Americans comparatively with the UK, which is annoying as you guys push that narrative on everyone online which colours the discourse.
    You can say that again! Boy, how the GOP has distorted political discourse in the US! What's next? Deathpanels?

    Just to be clear: I identify as a liberal-democrat. Have voted nothing but for liberal democratic parties, and would/will do so again next time. And I'm really not secretly burning a candle for the fascists. Far from it. Hell, not even for the conservatives!

    Not that I would never vote conservative (or labour for that matter). Because you should never say never. Just that it would involve, you know, the application of a rusty razor to my testicles.

    See, there's the problem that I think Max was going on about earlier. Mislabelling, having be a staple in the US for decades now, has completely distorted American political discorse.

    The GOP attacks the Democrats of being 'liberal', as if that's a bad thing (protip: it is not). But the fact is, both parties are such big tents, it is difficult to make one label stick to all people in office from either party, except when you want to attack it.

    I think that there are, indeed, still actual liberal democrats in the US Democratic party. But more neoliberals as well. Even conservatives (bluedog democrats), and social democrats (Sanders, etc.). The overall tendency, certainly from the Democratic leadership, however is still solidly neoliberal. That is, BTW, way to the right of any liberal (democrat) party in Europe (which are generally considered right-of-centre).

    But what happened to the GOP is downright crazy. It has lost almost all it's moderates in office. They were purged out of office as RINOS. They were always strongly conservative compared to the conservatives in Europe, but the GOP has now moved way into the right field. You now have true religious zealots in there (bringing about the end-times). The biogots and the racists. The extreme libertarians. Now the Trumpists, with all their fascist tendencies. It hasn't just moved to the right (like the democrats did), it went to the extreme, and it's still moving.

    And for years, to partly disguise that, they deliberately sabotaged the polical dictionary, so people wouldn't notice. I sometimes find US polical discussions downright schizophrenic. Up is down, left is right!

    Anyway, what I see here again, especially from our leftist posters from the US, is that they are perfectly willing to divide the resistance against Trumpism and the far right, only to score ideological points among themselves.

    That is pointless, and in fact dangerous. Because it will hurt the chances of a blue wave during the midterms, and increase the chances of Trump and the GOP getting reelected. Seriously, everything not-GOP has to work together to stop Trump, destroy what the GOP has become (and ironically, save it from itself), and generally save the US from it's trip down the fascist rabithole. Once that's done, feel free to squable as much as you like. The political discourse saved, democracy saved, eventually the voter will decide who's worthy of the vote. But until that time you really have to learn to work together.

    Perhaps that's easier to do if you're a liberal-democrat/centrist ...
    What you said but Matt Taibi does it better
    Speaking of which.
    Best part:

    "What all of this ignores is that voters are making different choices because they’ve concluded that the “accomplished” politicians were the ones hustling them. What else are people supposed to think, when they hear long-serving elected officials somberly insisting that we can’t afford health care or higher education just days after a bill boosting our already unnecessarily massive defense budget by $82 billion passed 85-10 in the Senate?

    If we can afford to spend more than the next 10 countries combined on defense, why can’t we afford higher education? Really? Who’s hustling whom?"

    "When pundits talk about this or that new idea being a “threat to democracy,” that’s what they mean – a threat to a few thousand hacks who’ve had a very long turn at the helm, and don’t want to let go. That’s really what all this pearl-clutching is about. Not all new ideas lead to the next Trump, no matter how much people try to scare you into thinking so."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB9JHwzzyX4
    Last edited by Sacul; July 3 2018 at 03:46:45 PM.
    Schopenhauer:

    All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed.
    Second, it is violently opposed.
    Third, it is accepted as being self-evident..

  14. #50014
    The Pube Whisperer Maximillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    I never said FDR was an extremist?

    I did say he is regarded by more than a few historians as an authoritarian. Which is true. You can say “nih uh, he wasn’t!” if you want and make the argument, and that’s fine.

    This was offered as a claim that authoritarianism isn’t universally negative, and is occasionally necessary to deal with historical speed-bumps like the Great Depression and the Nazis.

    Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR oversaw the mass deportation of "Mexicans" including US citizens of Mexican decent without oversite or due process. The numbers vary depending on source from a few hundred thousand to well over a million. FDR inherited the policy from Hoover but made no attempt to stop it.


    The reason given was that Mexicans were taking American (read white) jobs.

  15. #50015
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    19,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    On USA defence spending:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illion-666079/

    "The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion)."


    "Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you’ll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how “unrealistic” the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay.

    Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending “unrealistic.” Not even when Donald Trump wants them. "


    Fuck me sideways i am in the wrong trade.
    Better to keep em dumb and stick em in the military. Smart people don't wana be infantry.
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  16. #50016
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Lana Torrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sacul View Post
    On USA defence spending:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...illion-666079/

    "The annual increase by itself is bigger than the annual defense budget of Russia ($61 billion) and the two-year jump of over $165 billion eclipses the entire defense budget of China ($150 billion)."


    "Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you’ll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how “unrealistic” the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay.

    Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending “unrealistic.” Not even when Donald Trump wants them. "


    Fuck me sideways i am in the wrong trade.
    Better to keep em dumb and stick em in the military. Smart people don't wana be infantry.
    Yo, there's kids in the military that's why they call it infantry.

  17. #50017
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Maximillian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    I never said FDR was an extremist?

    I did say he is regarded by more than a few historians as an authoritarian. Which is true. You can say “nih uh, he wasn’t!” if you want and make the argument, and that’s fine.

    This was offered as a claim that authoritarianism isn’t universally negative, and is occasionally necessary to deal with historical speed-bumps like the Great Depression and the Nazis.

    Both Woodrow Wilson and FDR oversaw the mass deportation of "Mexicans" including US citizens of Mexican decent without oversite or due process. The numbers vary depending on source from a few hundred thousand to well over a million. FDR inherited the policy from Hoover but made no attempt to stop it.


    The reason given was that Mexicans were taking American (read white) jobs.
    Some useful wiki quotes for everyone.

    President Hoover publicly endorsed Secretary of Labor Doak and his campaign to add "245 more agents to assist in the deportation of 500,000 foreigners." Doak’s measures included monitoring labor protests or farm strikes and labeling protesters and protest leaders as possible subversives, communists, or radicals. "Strike leaders and picketers would be arrested, charged with being illegal aliens or engaging in illegal activities, and thus be subject to arbitrary deportation."
    Once apprehended, requesting a hearing was a possibility, but immigration officers rarely informed individuals of their rights, and the hearings were "official but informal," in that immigration inspectors "acted as interpreter, accuser, judge, and jury." Moreover, the deportee was seldom represented by a lawyer, a privilege that could only be granted at the discretion of the immigration officer. This process was likely a violation of US federal due process, equal protection, and Fourth Amendment rights.
    Repatriation is not widely discussed in U.S. history textbooks. In a 2006 survey of the nine most commonly used American history textbooks in the United States, four did not mention the topic, and only one devoted more than half a page to the topic. In total, they devoted four pages to the repatriation. In comparison, the same survey found eighteen pages covering the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, which affected a much smaller number of people. California has passed legislation attempting to address this in future curriculum revisions.
    The South African government tried this education trick with regards to the past too, and they where most definitely fascist, with the trappings of democracy for whites. The Apartheid law itself was the messianic leader though, with Verwoerd, it's author martyred to make it sacred. Adherence to "law and order" used to excuse many, many evil things.
    meh

  18. #50018
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,790
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    I never said FDR was an extremist?

    I did say he is regarded by more than a few historians as an authoritarian. Which is true. You can say “nih uh, he wasn’t!” if you want and make the argument, and that’s fine.

    This was offered as a claim that authoritarianism isn’t universally negative, and is occasionally necessary to deal with historical speed-bumps like the Great Depression and the Nazis.
    There's plenty to criticise FDR on. I've done so myself several times. But he was no more authoritarian as say, Hoover, Coolidge, or Harding. I'm not even going to Teddy. How about Jackson?

    The accusation is also unfair, because he was in the White House for far longer. No wonder that he was able to concentrate more power under his control than someone who has been there less than that. Moreover, as you already mentioned, he had the great depression and the fascists/nazis to deal with. And a lot of that power he did wield was given to him by congress.

    Who went along with what he did/proposed/etc. And when it looked like they wouldn't, he was politically smart enough not to push it. Just look at how constrained he was by the isolatioinist in the run up to the war! He couldn't push the boat out too far, because those constitutional checks and balances were still there, and pretty active!

    In addition, when he did (try to) overreach, he was swiftly called back to order by the supreme court. Also, what is notable is the strong support he got for most of his actions and policies; and that when he thought he wouldn't get it, he back off and away, and didn't proceed. In fact, he felt more bound and constrained (!) to public opinion that most of his predecessors. Or his successors, BTW.

    No, FDR was not so much an authoretarian as a president in exceptional circumstances, requiring him to do exceptional things. What I find interesting is not so much how much power he concentrated in his own hands, but how much he didn't even try to get, or want. Even when he had the chance.

    What I find funny is that the right constantly criticise him for doing too much, while the left criticise him for not having done enough! Sounds like a centrist to me ...

    (BTW, FDR's authoritarianism is a standard trope of the far right in the US. You know that, right?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  19. #50019
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartholomeus Crane View Post
    What I find funny is that the right constantly criticise him for doing too much, while the left criticise him for not having done enough! Sounds like a centrist to me ...
    Quite possibly the worst definition of "Centrist" possible.

    If we use that definition, every American president since FDR is a "centrist". Including Trump ffs.

    FDR was not a centrist by any stretch. But nor would I classify him as an Authoritarian either, despite having done a few authoritarian things in his time.


  20. #50020
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    5,143
    Centrism is a dumb meme for people who are too chickenshit to stand by their principles

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •