[LinearPhilosopher]

https://www.theglobe...ributed-to-ceo/

So another words, its not just us who have been getting hit with tarifs, trump is trying to start a trade war with the world?

[worry]

[EmperorMagus]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 28 June 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

It's like she pulled the list straight from the dark, deep pit where I hide my deepest desires.

[HoosierDaddy]

Luv2B_Sassy, on 28 June 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

She might as well add "Colonize Mars." Those things have no way of passing at all. Sanders acolytes are going to get slaughtered in all of but the most progressive districts in the US. Sorry, I like them, but being real and practical is important.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 28 June 2018 - 03:01 AM

[worry]

And you say you aren't cynical! I absolutely, 100% disagree with that. There's nothing on that list that isn't achievable, let alone fathomable. But the point isn't to immediately achieve all of your goals, it's to state your principles clearly, fight for them, and drag the zeitgeist leftward (an inch at a time if you have to). Politics is long term. I have nothing against institutional memory, but the "real" and "practical" politicians inspire little and achieve little, because they believe passionately in very little. Those terms are euphemisms for not upsetting the people who bought them. Dems lost over 1000 seats nationally under Obama. Hillary Clinton lost to the biggest moron in modern political history. That's definitely real, but not particularly practical. Meanwhile, this time last year, "Abolish ICE" wasn't even in the atmosphere. Now, a few sitting congressmen have already signed on, let alone the people who are adding it to their campaign platforms. Even Kamala Harris here in CA, who just a few months ago defended ICE on national television, said this week that we just might have to "start from scratch" there.

Obviously no one thing succeeds everywhere, progressives aren't unseating establishment incumbents in every race, "moderate" Dems are appropriate candidates in plenty of locales, but in the long term: representing people, over power, over money, over property, is the only winning left position. And one last point, it's not always about the national stage. Local and state races are seeing the same kind of groundswells pop up. Even when leftist candidate lose, they drag their opponents left in the meantime and they help build fundamental campaign infrastructure that can be utilized next time. That is the kind of real and practical politics I am enthused about.

[Tapper]

Alternative Goose, on 27 June 2018 - 02:18 PM, said:

For what it's worth the rational talk I've heard so far suggests that this isn't necessarily indicative of weapons manufacture. Just work on their nuclear power facility.

Let's not repeat 2003.

Well, that was something Iran was forbidden from doing, I think, in THE WORST DEAL EVER.

[Tapper]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 June 2018 - 03:00 AM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 28 June 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

She might as well add "Colonize Mars." Those things have no way of passing at all. Sanders acolytes are going to get slaughtered in all of but the most progressive districts in the US. Sorry, I like them, but being real and practical is important.

I am sad you consider it unreal and impractical. Most of that list is actually existing law in Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries.
There is no absolutely no reason whatsoever why the US cannot have this if the US wants to have this.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 28 June 2018 - 10:29 AM

[QuickTidal]

[Tiste Simeon]

Tapper, on 28 June 2018 - 10:29 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 28 June 2018 - 03:00 AM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 28 June 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

She might as well add "Colonize Mars." Those things have no way of passing at all. Sanders acolytes are going to get slaughtered in all of but the most progressive districts in the US. Sorry, I like them, but being real and practical is important.

I am sad you consider it unreal and impractical. Most of that list is actually existing law in Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries.
There is no absolutely no reason whatsoever why the US cannot have this if the US wants to have this.

Of course the US doesn't want this. There's too many people making far too much money for them to allow such a change.

[Gorefest]

There are far far more people potentially benefiting from it though, if only they could rip themselves away from Fox News. There's a plan to fix the USA: bomb Fox News.

[Cause]

their is something wrong with America if who sits on the Supreme Court can so radically alter their interpretation of the law. Abortion can’t be legal and then illegal depending who sits on the court. Can it?

[Vengeance]

Cause, on 28 June 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

their is something wrong with America if who sits on the Supreme Court can so radically alter their interpretation of the law. Abortion can’t be legal and then illegal depending who sits on the court. Can it?

Yes it can. There is no actual law that says that it is legal. Instead there is an supreme court interpretation of the constitution that says that it is legal. Thus a court of a different make up can interpret the constitution a different way and make it illegal. Now the right to women to vote and for African Americans to have freedom and vote is are both admendment's to the constitution so those can not be reinterpreted. So I guess there is that.

[QuickTidal]

Vengeance, on 28 June 2018 - 04:53 PM, said:

Cause, on 28 June 2018 - 04:27 PM, said:

their is something wrong with America if who sits on the Supreme Court can so radically alter their interpretation of the law. Abortion can’t be legal and then illegal depending who sits on the court. Can it?

Yes it can. There is no actual law that says that it is legal. Instead there is an supreme court interpretation of the constitution that says that it is legal. Thus a court of a different make up can interpret the constitution a different way and make it illegal. Now the right to women to vote and for African Americans to have freedom and vote is are both admendment's to the constitution so those can not be reinterpreted. So I guess there is that.

Once Trump pushes whoever he's going to push into the vacant seat, I can see Roe V Wade being the first goddamn thing they revisit...and it's going to make me sick to my stomach.

[HoosierDaddy]

Tapper, on 28 June 2018 - 10:29 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 28 June 2018 - 03:00 AM, said:

Luv2B_Sassy, on 28 June 2018 - 02:41 AM, said:

She might as well add "Colonize Mars." Those things have no way of passing at all. Sanders acolytes are going to get slaughtered in all of but the most progressive districts in the US. Sorry, I like them, but being real and practical is important.

I am sad you consider it unreal and impractical. Most of that list is actually existing law in Scandinavia, Germany and the Low Countries.
There is no absolutely no reason whatsoever why the US cannot have this if the US wants to have this.

What I want and what is possible are two entirely different things. You aren't going to convince the 49% of the public that voted for Trump that Universal Healthcare et. al. is ok. They don't even want to fund Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

We are NOT Scandanavia or western Europe. Entrenched groups will fight that to their very death, and they have far more money to spend on it than the people who would benefit from it.

Not cynical. Realistic.

[worry]

Well, I won't argue with your firmly held belief. I think we should just agree to meet again in this very thread 30 years from now and see how things shook out.

[worry]

Huh. This reminds me of no particular organization in human history.

[Garak]

I'm missing context here or something, why is Universal Healthcare so hated?

[Tiste Simeon]

"Hurr Durr why should my money pay for someone else to receive healthcare?"

Is about the long and short of it. Plus many people whipping up the feeling of being against it are making money from the current system.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 June 2018 - 07:05 AM, said:

"Hurr Durr why should my money pay for someone else to receive healthcare?"

Is about the long and short of it. Plus many people whipping up the feeling of being against it are making money from the current system.

This, america has a deep seated ethos of "pulling yourself up by your own boot straps", combined with people exploiting that mentality to profit. There are hospitals run by insurance companies in the states. If thats not a racket, i don't know what is.

[Gorefest]

Yeah, I guess if that sort of basic mentality of selfishness is engrained in the population from the base up, there is little chance of significant change going forward. Nobody looks out for the weak in society because they are considered weak, which equates to bad in the overall narrative.