US Politics Megathread

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

I would think that's a sin but I guess not
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by lejend »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:42
lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:41
Show hidden quotes
Well, that and they've been protesting outside his home for a couple of months now (which is illegal AFAIK) and someone even tried to assassinate him a couple of weeks ago
Great moral compass here, intentionally inflicting harm on people because of the actions of other, unrelated people
Not letting someone murder a child isn't inflicting harm on them.

This decision doesn't even criminalize abortion, it just sends it back to the states.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:50
fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:42
Show hidden quotes
Great moral compass here, intentionally inflicting harm on people because of the actions of other, unrelated people
Not letting someone murder a child isn't inflicting harm on them.

This decision doesn't even criminalize abortion, it just sends it back to the states.
Do you think that any states will criminalize abortion for rape victims?
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by lejend »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:51
lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:50
Show hidden quotes
Not letting someone murder a child isn't inflicting harm on them.

This decision doesn't even criminalize abortion, it just sends it back to the states.
Do you think that any states will criminalize abortion for rape victims?
I'm pretty sure a few already have.
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by princeofcarthage »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:42
lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:41
Show hidden quotes
Well, that and they've been protesting outside his home for a couple of months now (which is illegal AFAIK) and someone even tried to assassinate him a couple of weeks ago
Great moral compass here, intentionally inflicting harm on people because of the actions of other, unrelated people
Everyone has this moral compass including you. If enough activities are related to one particular group it can initiate strong anti reactions in you. It is possible that false accusations could evoked strong anti-women reactions in him.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Rainbow Land callentournies
Howdah
Posts: 1676
Joined: May 6, 2021
ESO: esuck

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by callentournies »

I fucking love murdering children mmmhmmmmhmmm
If I were a petal
And plucked, or moth, plucked
From flowers or pollen froth
To wither on a young child’s
Display. Fetch
Me a ribbon, they, all dead
Things scream.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:57
fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:51
Show hidden quotes
Do you think that any states will criminalize abortion for rape victims?
I'm pretty sure a few already have.
Is that good or bad in your opinion
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Kiribati princeofcarthage
Retired Contributor
Posts: 8861
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Location: Milky Way!

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by princeofcarthage »

iNcog wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 18:40
I'm not following it 100%, but the chances of this being codified into federal law (as it should have been) is basically very low right? The republicans hold too many seats to make that happen?
Well the thing is there is not strong general demand for this to be codified. I mean yes many surveys show more than 60% of Americans in favor of abortion rights but there is a difference between "support" and "demand". In a country like US where you only have limited choices for candidates you often have to compromise on your certain views. You will not have a candidate who may support all your views. So you have to prioritize which views and actions to be demanded. Lets be frank here, as of today only half of the states are planning to bring anti abortion laws. This already affects extremely low % of the populace. Even if you couldn't get abortion in your state you can always go to other states or even Mexico to get abortion done. So there are going to be extremely extremely extremely small number of women who won't have resources to do abortion. So I don't think there is enough strong demand for this to be codified as of now.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by n0el »

making it a federal law doesn't guarantee anything either, the current and future activist right wing court could overturn that as well on whatever grounds they make up to do so. only absolute solution is a constitutional amendment which is impossible
mad cuz bad
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

n0el wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:11
making it a federal law doesn't guarantee anything either, the current and future activist right wing court could overturn that as well on whatever grounds they make up to do so. only absolute solution is a constitutional amendment which is impossible
I can think of a few other absolute solutions
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
United States of America n0el
ESOC Business Team
Posts: 7068
Joined: Jul 24, 2015
ESO: jezabob
Clan: 팀 하우스

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by n0el »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:12
n0el wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:11
making it a federal law doesn't guarantee anything either, the current and future activist right wing court could overturn that as well on whatever grounds they make up to do so. only absolute solution is a constitutional amendment which is impossible
I can think of a few other absolute solutions
like what? stack the court and have them overturn this decision? then when a republican wins again they do the same thing until the constitution gets dissolved. i personally like that option but its highly unlikely and extremely dangerous to take the guard rails all the way off
mad cuz bad
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Goodspeed »

Just revolt tbh. It's a good time for it, all things considered
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

n0el wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:15
fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:12
n0el wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:11
making it a federal law doesn't guarantee anything either, the current and future activist right wing court could overturn that as well on whatever grounds they make up to do so. only absolute solution is a constitutional amendment which is impossible
I can think of a few other absolute solutions
like what? stack the court and have them overturn this decision? then when a republican wins again they do the same thing until the constitution gets dissolved. i personally like that option but its highly unlikely and extremely dangerous to take the guard rails all the way off
Maybe there's something the 2nd amendment people can do, I don't know
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Cometk »

Goodspeed wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:32
Just revolt tbh. It's a good time for it, all things considered
@fightinfrenchman podcasht when?
Image
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by fightinfrenchman »

If podcasts were gonna save America you'd think it would have happened by now
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
United States of America Cometk
Retired Contributor
Posts: 7257
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
Location: California

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Cometk »

Image
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 07:18
Not sure how the wiki page is relevant.
It provides a counterpoint to this picture of new deal as expanding social security and government getting bigger to fix the economy.
No it doesn't, it just talks about some new deal policies that are often forgotten/overlooked in discussion around it today.
But you are right in saying the new deal didn't expand social security in the US. It created it.

The government getting bigger to fix the economy is quintessential new deal. Lots of new government institutions were created, including the ones mentioned in your article. Creating new institutions to guide capital in the right direction is very different from the kind of approach you would see today (it is antithetical to neoliberalism), and decidedly more towards the left of the political spectrum.
But what seems to have happened is that the US government used a combination of methods to make the markets work again, rather than substituting market forces with socialised economic solutions.
Idk what you mean by socialised economic solutions, but for the record no one is claiming the new deal was a rejection of capitalism in favor of socialism.
It runs counter to this simplistic picture that the new deal was some kind of progressive plan that proved how government intervention can work in the economy and how that should be a mainstay of public policy.
If you get down to the details, it doesn't look like that at all. They worked through the markets to make markets work again normally.
Reading one article cherry-picked to fit your existing opinion on the matter isn't "getting down to the details." If you want the details I re-recommend the book I linked. The new deal was absolutely a progressive plan. Denying that is frankly laughable. Idk if it "proved" that government intervention "can work in the economy" but that's another straw man. I never claimed that, though ironically the article you linked provides some evidence towards it.
The point I wanted to get across is that the new deal wasn't some kind of amazing third way in terms of economic systems that is like the best of both worlds and everyone should emulate because it worked in the USA after the depression.
It was a plan that was supposed to make the market-based economy in the USA recover, get back into its normal market dynamics. You seem to suggest that the new deal is some kind of economic panacea that should be recommended in any context, like today, just because there are some economic difficulties, but we surely are not living in a post-depression period. There isn't 25% unemployment or anything of the magnitude seen during the great depression to justify a plan like the new deal to bring the market back to a normal dynamic.

The new deal topic has probably been raised in the USA because boomers like Biden think they can fix the deeply divided society in the USA by spending a lot of public money to draw attention away from the culture wars, racial issues, political polarisation and make Americans focus on things that aren't so divisive.
Recommending the new deal as an economic model doesn't make much sense in this context because you don't fix cultural and political conflicts with more infrastructure, more money for schools and more socialised healthcare. In fact, some of these economic themes are polarising in themselves.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Goodspeed »

Ok you're just arguing against a made up position again. I get the feeling you don't really like discussions. Every time we disagree you end up making it about something else.
The point I wanted to get across is that the new deal wasn't some kind of amazing third way in terms of economic systems that is like the best of both worlds and everyone should emulate because it worked in the USA after the depression.
I don't think that.
It was a plan that was supposed to make the market-based economy in the USA recover, get back into its normal market dynamics. You seem to suggest that the new deal is some kind of economic panacea that should be recommended in any context
Why do you think I'm suggesting that?

I don't think your characterization is correct though. It wasn't just a regulatory framework to help the markets recover, it also contained redistributive policies which reduced inequality and strengthened the middle class. And that is something we also need today.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 08:25
I don't think your characterization is correct though. It wasn't just a regulatory framework to help the markets recover,
But that's what it was, that was its purpose, to make the capitalist system recover from a depression. In fact, that's how it even came into being, as a plan of recovery from a major economic crisis. It didn't come about as a plan to "fix capitalism". Maybe you see it through this lens because you project what you'd like the new deal to mean in the current context.
it also contained redistributive policies which reduced inequality and strengthened the middle class. And that is something we also need today.
It did that because the effects of economic depression were so dire that some categories of people needed direct help, not because they were trying to create a new kind of economic system. And, after a few decades, the coalition that supported this political compromise eventually collapsed, as economic conditions improved and policymakers didn't think it was necessary to continue with such a plan. Context changed, policy changed. There was no idea that such a plan should become the baseline blueprint of the actual economic system of the USA.

It seems I'm not the only one who has this perception. The question of whether the new deal represented just a policy with an expiry date tailored for a specific context or a permanent shift in how the economic system was supposed to work in the USA is a matter of some debate in the USA. For example this paper argues along the same lines I argued:
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/75045/Salvatore9_The_Long_Exception001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Btw, it's possible that how you view the New Deal was influenced by that book you recommended and which was written by a guy that is obviously a Democrat. If you read his editorials in The Guardian, he always argues along lines that ridicule the Republicans and support the Democrat point of view as the reasonable one. For example in this editorial he refers to:
the true steal in American politics: not the presidential election of 2020 but Mitch McConnell’s hijacking of two supreme court appointments to achieve the GOP’s 40-year quest for an impregnable conservative majority
If someone argues like that, it's obvious he's not just a neutral academic. He's aligning himself with bashing certain political figures and putting pressure on an institution to make decisions in a direction wanted by Democrats.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 08:25
It was a plan that was supposed to make the market-based economy in the USA recover, get back into its normal market dynamics. You seem to suggest that the new deal is some kind of economic panacea that should be recommended in any context
Why do you think I'm suggesting that?
You're doing that in the next sentence, when you say:
I don't think your characterization is correct though. It wasn't just a regulatory framework to help the markets recover, it also contained redistributive policies which reduced inequality and strengthened the middle class. And that is something we also need today.
What does this mean if not that you think such a framework should be something permanent, not just a temporary policy. So you are suggesting that New-Deal-type policies should have become the economic system itself.

Which is understandable, because that's the European way of looking at things. If you grew up in a system in which this stuff has been the norm, you tend to think that the US system was weird. But in their own separate world, that system made a lot of sense, because they had a very different mentality compared to the continental European one, a much more individualistic one.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 10:23
Goodspeed wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 08:25
I don't think your characterization is correct though. It wasn't just a regulatory framework to help the markets recover,
But that's what it was, that was its purpose, to make the capitalist system recover from a depression. In fact, that's how it even came into being, as a plan of recovery from a major economic crisis. It didn't come about as a plan to "fix capitalism". Maybe you see it through this lens because you project what you'd like the new deal to mean in the current context.
Through what lens do you think I see it? I never denied that it was meant to restore the economy. It did that in a myriad of ways, one of which was the regulatory framework you keep mentioning, another was redistributive policies. I brought those up because you were saying it was only a regulatory framework, which is mischaracterizing it.
it also contained redistributive policies which reduced inequality and strengthened the middle class. And that is something we also need today.
It did that because the effects of economic depression were so dire that some categories of people needed direct help, not because they were trying to create a new kind of economic system. And, after a few decades, the coalition that supported this political compromise eventually collapsed, as economic conditions improved and policymakers didn't think it was necessary to continue with such a plan. Context changed, policy changed. There was no idea that such a plan should become the baseline blueprint of the actual economic system of the USA.
The reason why it contained redistributive policies is not under discussion here. I'm not sure why you think it is. I never made any arguments about that either way.
It seems I'm not the only one who has this perception. The question of whether the new deal represented just a policy with an expiry date tailored for a specific context or a permanent shift in how the economic system was supposed to work in the USA is a matter of some debate in the USA. For example this paper argues along the same lines I argued:
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/75045/Salvatore9_The_Long_Exception001.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Many new deal policies were not intended to expire and indeed didn't. You are intentionally only looking at very specific parts of it because it fits your narrative. Anyway, again, the new deal was not a rejection of capitalism in favor of some new large-scale economic theory. I never claimed it was. It was never intended to be a permanent shift in "how the economic system worked" in the USA, in fact it was never even intended to be a short-term shift, depending on how you define the part in quotes.
Btw, it's possible that how you view the New Deal was influenced by that book you recommended and which was written by a guy that is obviously a Democrat. If you read his editorials in The Guardian, he always argues along lines that ridicule the Republicans and support the Democrat point of view as the reasonable one. For example in this editorial he refers to:
the true steal in American politics: not the presidential election of 2020 but Mitch McConnell’s hijacking of two supreme court appointments to achieve the GOP’s 40-year quest for an impregnable conservative majority
If someone argues like that, it's obvious he's not just a neutral academic. He's aligning himself with bashing certain political figures and putting pressure on an institution to make decisions in a direction wanted by Democrats.
I'm not sure what you think you know about how I view things relating to the new deal, but it's almost certainly wrong. In this discussion, I never even made any subjective statements that would betray my opinion on it. I've just been correcting your extremely narrow view.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 10:34
Goodspeed wrote:
25 Jun 2022, 08:25
It was a plan that was supposed to make the market-based economy in the USA recover, get back into its normal market dynamics. You seem to suggest that the new deal is some kind of economic panacea that should be recommended in any context
Why do you think I'm suggesting that?
You're doing that in the next sentence, when you say:
I don't think your characterization is correct though. It wasn't just a regulatory framework to help the markets recover, it also contained redistributive policies which reduced inequality and strengthened the middle class. And that is something we also need today.
What does this mean if not that you think such a framework should be something permanent, not just a temporary policy. So you are suggesting that New-Deal-type policies should have become the economic system itself.
In the bolded part I'm just pointing out that the new deal was more than the regulatory framework you seem to think it was. With the last sentence that you didn't bold I'm saying we need to reduce inequality and strengthen the middle class. The way we do that now is obviously not going to be the same as in the 1930s. I don't think we should copy the new deal and didn't mean to imply that.

And redistributive policies don't represent a new "economic system." You keep saying that. Where did you get that idea? It's a set of policies that work within our current system. Are you so afraid of communism that you feel the need to characterize any progressive policy as a shift in our economic system, enabling you to argue internally that we are dangerously moving away from capitalism? Trigger the ole' amygdala?
Which is understandable, because that's the European way of looking at things. If you grew up in a system in which this stuff has been the norm, you tend to think that the US system was weird. But in their own separate world, that system made a lot of sense, because they had a very different mentality compared to the continental European one, a much more individualistic one.
Actually we have the same problem here. We, too, are struggling with the results of 40 years of neoliberal politics.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by Goodspeed »

The end of the neoliberal order and the start of a political order presumably more towards the left of the political spectrum must be a very scary time for you. Rest assured, socialism and communism aren't on the table.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13236
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by iNcog »

Did some posts get deleted?
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
No Flag lejend
Jaeger
Posts: 2461
Joined: Nov 15, 2015

Re: US Politics Megathread

Post by lejend »

fightinfrenchman wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 20:04
lejend wrote:
24 Jun 2022, 19:57
Show hidden quotes
I'm pretty sure a few already have.
Is that good or bad in your opinion
It's good. Most countries don't even impose the death penalty for rape anymore, much less for the "crime" of having been conceived in rape. A child conceived in rape isn't "the rapist's baby", as if they're somehow dirty or tainted by the nature of their existence. They're not a problem to be solved, they're an innocent human being every bit as valuable and worthy of protection as anyone else.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV