The Squad thread

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,429
9,870
0
I agree but it works.

It's sad to say but I believe that most voters are ignorant.
Which is evidence of the circular problem. They listen to their news rhetoric saying any social program is socialism/communism and must be apposed at all costs.

While they cut funding to education.

there's a clear pattern that conservatives (it's more than just republicans, it's a conservative thing even up here) that "cuts" is a euphamism for reducing the efficacy of public education and public services in order to push for "free market" solutions that benefit them as individuals directly.


the dumber the population the more likely they are to vote against their own better interest in the name of some rhetoric. the dumber they get, the more they vote them. The more they vote them, the more they cut. The more they cut, the dumber the population gets as a whole while education becomes only in the realm of those who have privilege.

it's a dangerous cycle. Republicans, and Canadian Conservatives seem intent on following this playbook. Look at current Ontario Progress Conservative leader Doug Ford (Yes, the brother of the late crackhead mayor Rob Ford). Came to power and immediately cut funding to education and health, while still spending more than the previous "EVIL" liberals. Giving his friends cushy jobs and patronage appointments paying 2-3x the average salary for jobs that don't actually exist.
[doublepost=1563545359][/doublepost]
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Again, that's not what I am arguing. I am not arguing for the slippery slope. I do not believe that if we implement (well) universal healthcare we will automatically have Stalin 2.0 or Mussolini 2.0. That is ridiculous. We all have to always keep our eyes open, but this is true independently on what policies we implement and on which candidate wins the election. The Patriot Act for example was so big-brotherish that yes, we risked a light form of fascism; we didn't keep our eyes open due to 9/11 and fear, and we got a bad deal. The intention was good (prevent terroristic acts) but it ended up being abused while we were distracted.
Whatever you said in your post does not deny my simple statement, that one can't (or shouldn't) identify some welfare policies with socialism and then proclaim"I support socialism!" for the simple reason that socialism is deeper and requires some important implementations that go touch the economy, means of production, education and so on that are more profound that simply extend policies. You can also put whatever qualifier you want in front of socialism "democratic" "light" "whatever", but the bottom line of my argument doesn't change.
Well, Yes, Saying you're a socialist because you want universal healthcare is also silliness and shows a complete lack of understanding of socialism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,429
9,870
0
Precisely. Thanks for the good discussion, I'll drink a cup of coffee in your honor :)
We don't always agree on policy, but I'd have a beer and debate with youif you ever visit the GTA.

there's a difference between discourse and discussion, what we have, and the people who shut down arguments by repeating nonsense rhetoric. I'll debate till I'm blue in the face the validity of policy/programs based on opinion or fact. I will not deal with people who repeat rhetoric, refuse to learn the actual concepts, but use that rhetoric as some sort of badge of honour.

that, and I outright refuse to deal, discuss with racists, bigots or homophobes :p. but I just ignore them and let them scream at the sky on their own. their voices aren't worth listening to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

yaxomoxay

macrumors 68040
Mar 3, 2010
3,548
24,104
0
Texas
We don't always agree on policy, but I'd have a beer and debate with youif you ever visit the GTA.

there's a difference between discourse and discussion, what we have, and the people who shut down arguments by repeating nonsense rhetoric. I'll debate till I'm blue in the face the validity of policy/programs based on opinion or fact. I will not deal with people who repeat rhetoric, refuse to learn the actual concepts, but use that rhetoric as some sort of badge of honour.

that, and I outright refuse to deal, discuss with racists, bigots or homophobes :p. but I just ignore them and let them scream at the sky on their own. their voices aren't worth listening to.
In all fairness, by the fourth beer I can't make any valid argument so I start with empty rhetoric too, however in I am not sure that at that point my interlocutor really cares :)
 

LordVic

macrumors 603
Sep 7, 2011
5,429
9,870
0
In all fairness, by the fourth beer I can't make any valid argument so I start with empty rhetoric too, however in I am not sure that at that point my interlocutor really cares :)
By the Fourth pint, i'm lucky if I can even remember the point I was making.. So we're good
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay

Chew Toy McCoy

macrumors regular
May 13, 2016
202
2,692
0
It's nice to see a level headed discussion on government assistance programs that could benefit the many, not just those at the bottom or at the top. There are still a million things that can be for profit. Healthcare and education don't have to be among those.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,258
28,879
0
Catskill Mountains
They holds some truely nasty views, and I find their faux outrage and press releases to be evident of that disingenuousness.
The views of the four Congresswomen encompass more than soundbites selected for an ongoing hammering on them by political opponents.

If you don't care for their actual views on national issues, why not pay mind to the views of your district's Congress critter, and let the Squad's respective constituents critique their own representatives?

The Squad are not uniquely empowered lawmakers about to rule the USA together by fiat. They are four young congresswomen with some progressive ideas and the right to air them in a national dialogue if we care to engage in such a thing in good faith.

As for nasty views... Trump has the best, the best nasty views and they are views he has demonstrably held and acted on since way back in his early business dealings in NYC. And those are just the views related to his racism. There are other nasty views Trump holds and promulgates from the bully pulpit of the White House. Unfortunately for the left-behind, he has managed to accomplish some of them via executive orders that undo rules designed to protect American consumer and labor rights. Why they would vote for him again beats the hell out of me.

A close runner-up for holding nasty views are the rally fans who chanted "Send her back" the other night, referring to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. But Donald Trump trumped all that bad acting later on by lying about not liking that chant and by also lying about shutting the chant down as soon as he could. There's video of him doing nada for 13 seconds ...and he looks like he's happily inhaling the scent of a turkey dinner in the meanwhile. The man is a racist, xenophobic and self-serving misogynist who can't count on being re-elected because he has isolated himself and his hardcore base from mainstream thinking on who we Americans are and what we stand for.

If Trump and the GOP leadership plan to elevate racist remarks and xenophobic chants to "a thing" that's to be featured that prominently in the rest of his party's 2020 campaigns, they may as well save their money and skip town right now: they'll end up giving Americans plenty good reason to retain the House, flip the U.S.Senate and cancel the next season of "Trump and Friends, Revealed." His act is getting old and that slice of support he's appealing to now is insufficient to get him a second term in office.

The Squad is not running for president in 2020. Trump is. He needs to shift gears and find a campaign platform big enough to hold some voters. Not sure tariffs and trade wars --never mind bobbing and weaving to dodge justifiable charges of racism-- are the way to get there. I'm sure the GOP is telling him this lately considering that he threatens their 2020 congressional campaigns every time he opens his mouth.
 

TheFluffyDuck

macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2012
484
1,081
0
They are human beings. I’m impressed that it wouldn’t bother you to have the president leading an angry mob chanting to kick you out of your home country, but you clearly are emotionally stronger than me (and just about everyone I know).
Thanks, I know you meant that as an insult but it really is a complement. If you ever find yourself being emotional at something a politician has said or done, you are being manipulated. Take the issue of nuclear-power for example, its always easy to scare the daylights out of somebody that to educate them how it works. A person who arrives at their opinions based on reason can be reasoned out of them. But an emotional person cannot be reasoned out of them as it wasn't reason that them into it; emotion has much more sticking power.

Reason = High entry cost, low exist cost.
Emotion = Low entry cost, high exist cost.

If you are engaged in an ideological war, the former is poison, where the later is your modus operandi. Shall I organise a press release?
[doublepost=1563788358][/doublepost]
As for nasty views... Trump has the best...
And liberals fall for it every time (See above as to why). Rather than take it at face value, ask your self, what is is drawing attention away from? There is your real issue.
 

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,780
0
And liberals fall for it every time (See above as to why). Rather than take it at face value, ask your self, what is is drawing attention away from? There is your real issue.
I've been saying this since he was elected. He waves one hand and works the left, with their complicit MSM, into a frenzy all the while he doing something else with his other one.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,010
0
PDX
Visit site
I've been saying this since he was elected. He waves one hand and works the left, with their complicit MSM, into a frenzy all the while he doing something else with his other one.
maybe. There is a natural human tendency to make sense of the bizarre. There is also a decent chance that Trump is just an idiot, but aggressively so...
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,258
28,879
0
Catskill Mountains
Rather than take it at face value, ask your self, what is is drawing attention away from? There is your real issue.
I regard myself as a fairly dispassionate left-leaning collector of information about Donald Trump based on his observable behavior. I am sure the RNC has its counterparts keeping track of Mr. Trump as well... even if so far those officers and the party's legislative leaders seem in disarray about how to cope with Trump's latest self-destructive and party-destructive public commentary.

Whatever Trump may be thinking he needs to "draw attention away from", that's more likely his problem than mine or that of the Democratic Party, even if it (whatever "it" may be) does prove to be yet another massive thorn in the Republican Party's side.

As to my earlier post, my argument was fundamentally not unlike yours: the "real issue" is not the four congresswomen, not their views, not their ethnicity, race, citizenship, country of origin. That's not to set aside the gravity of issues that have now been elevated to points of heated discussion in the USA yet again. It's to stipulate that they are not the only or even foremost issues facing the Republican Party as it prepares for 2020 campaigns to defend 22 Senate seats, to retain the White House and to reverse some 2018 losses in the House.

You seem to think the "real issue" is that Trump is trying to distract the public from some other shoe to drop. Sure, it's possible he's preoccupied by something that's still under the radar, or annoyed that Mueller may be bringing televised attention next week to a report that much of the American public has not bothered to read.

But as I argued in my own previous post, I think the "real issue" from the standpoint of the Republican Party is that Trump's focus on the four congresswomen for whatever reason is a drag on his party's chances to hold past gains or make progress in the next general elections.

Those four members of the House will merely be standing for their own re-election in districts where they remain popular. Trump on the other hand will be facing a nominee of the Democratic Party who has yet to be chosen. The congresswomen are not standing for the office Trump occupies.

Now Trump has a track record of legislative and executive actions to defend: much of it in at least its fine print is not at all favorable to the very "left-behind" people he promised to help in his Make America Great Again campaign of 2016. He and his party are vulnerable on the discrepancy between the promises and the accomplishments.

Yet Trump has chosen to double down on what at best was an unfortunate choice of words in his tweet, then at the behest of others to try to soften the impact of his tweet, then to swing around and double down again, meanwhile to lie about his own behavior at a rally for which independently made videos exist and which contradict his claims.

My point is indeed that all that thrashing around, although at best unseemly, is not "the real issue" facing Trump and the party that nominated him in 2016, the party that appears poised to renominate him in 2020. The real issue facing the Republican Party is Trump's inability to take anyone but himself and his own perceived --and sometimes incorrectly perceived-- welfare into account, even as his every action in office has potential for negative impact on prospects of his party and our country.

This latest demonstration of Trump being Trump -- a demonstration that he is unable to be anything for anyone except and sometimes not even for himself-- is the epitome of "the real issue" for a Republican Party still trying to grab the brass ring from Trump's circus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VulchR

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,780
0
Whatever Trump may be thinking he needs to "draw attention away from", that's more likely his problem than mine or that of the Democratic Party, even if it (whatever "it" may be) does prove to be yet another massive thorn in the Republican Party's side.
Not sure you are getting what we mean by that. While he is showing the MSM something that is "Ooh Shiny!" and they go apoplectic. So while they are whipped into a lather over something "mean" he said, he is quietly nominating judges at a pretty good clip. If he gets 8 years, at the rate he is going he will have appointed half the federal judiciary.

So the press can focus on who he calls what while he is going about doing what he said he would do.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,258
28,879
0
Catskill Mountains
Not sure you are getting what we mean by that. While he is showing the MSM something that is "Ooh Shiny!" and they go apoplectic. So while they are whipped into a lather over something "mean" he said, he is quietly nominating judges at a pretty good clip. If he gets 8 years, at the rate he is going he will have appointed half the federal judiciary.

So the press can focus on who he calls what while he is going about doing what he said he would do.
Yeah so you're saying that about all the Rs have left is ability to pack the courts? Sad, isn't it.

There are other things besides packing the judiciary that the GOP and Trump have done that have largely flown under the radar. I have often pointed out fine print of rule changes that do not serve the interests Trump appealed to in the 2016 campaigns. I would expect the Democrats to mention some of those in passing, particularly those they know stemmed from executive actions he signed with a flourish but which required Congressional legislation that was not forthcoming.

File all that under showmanship and promises broken, because that's the file the Dems will pull it out of.

As to the judiciary: it will be interesting to see far right opinion makers fall silent on the subject of "judicial activism" or even more interesting, go on deep defense of it. The Constitution is still the Constitution. It can be such an annoyance. Of course I am concerned about an "ideological court". I'm actually more concerned about the low qualification of some of Trump's choices. Maybe they will sharpen up as time goes on. Maybe that's not bad news for the USA.

The thing to remember about any judicial appointment in the USA is that we're talking about judges interpreting law in light of a Constitution as amended that's been forthright about the civil liberties of its citizens, and about the fact that the government is meant by its constitutional underpinnings to serve the people.

The other thing for someone like Trump to remember is that amending the Constitution is an onerous process. It was meant to be hard, so its potential impact on all states and all the people would get due respect under rule of law before we go switching it up some more.

Meanwhile any judge considering a case is not free simply to "legislate from the bench" in future any more than he or she has been in the past, in the imagination of some of your friends on the right.

That fact is part of why David Souter turned out to be "a disappointment" to some kibitzers down the road a bit after his appointment by Bush 41. It's part of why some are disappointed in Chief Justice Roberts.

It's part of why some of the barely qualified picks shepherded onto the federal bench by McConnell will also disappoint those hoping to defang a democratic (small D) legislative process by keeping an autocratic guy like Trump in the White House hoping to rely on an ideologically inclined judiciary to back him up.

The time dwindles for the Rs to realize they need to give it up and broaden their horizons, switch up their platforms, ditch the anti-science rhetoric and appeals to white nationalists, get on board the actual train that is the USA moving forward at this point. Some of these guys in the GOP leadership are not even just antebellum in their outlook, they're antediluvian.

The Rs were doing better after their 2012 losses with some lessons learned, making progress towards attracting more women and nonwhites to the party. Then along came Trump... and they didn't steamroll the dude. They saw gold in his showmanship. They now own the excesses and sheer failures of the 115th Congress, plus the midterm losses that flipped the House in 2018. They also own Donald Trump and his autocratic legacy of incompetence, corruption, selfishness and arrogance at home and abroad.

But hey, there's still time to tack in some more judges. Maybe even root around and find some highly qualified ones that will stand the test of time with some honor cast back on this administration. Maybe.
 

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,780
0
As to the judiciary: it will be interesting to see far right opinion makers fall silent on the subject of "judicial activism" or even more interesting, go on deep defense of it. The Constitution is still the Constitution. It can be such an annoyance. Of course I am concerned about an "ideological court". I'm actually more concerned about the low qualification of some of Trump's choices. Maybe they will sharpen up as time goes on.
Actually read an interesting article about Justice Stevens and how he was selected. Based on how they were selected, the ones today are probably more qualified, or at least more vetted than they were back then.

The process used to be more political than it is now, if that is possible, but in a different way. I think this one is an example of something that wouldn't fly today:

During the era in which Justice Stevens was appointed, political considerations, rather than jurisprudential ones, drove Supreme Court nominations. Court appointments were given as political rewards (as in the case of President Eisenhower’s nomination of Earl Warren, who had dropped out of the 1952 Republican primary, clearing the way for Ike’s victory) or with the hope of securing segments of the electorate (as in the case of Eisenhower’s nomination of William Brennan, a Catholic Democrat, to curry favor in the Northeast). Shockingly, little consideration was given to a potential nominee’s jurisprudential ideology.
Wow, just wow!
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,258
28,879
0
Catskill Mountains
Wow, just wow!
So you're so wowed that you're not going to share the link to the piece you quoted? :D

I'm quite partial to the idea that "little consideration was given to a potential nominee's jurisprudential ideology." I sorta think I'd prefer to take my chances with a nomination meant to curry favor in a geographical area than know we're dealing as we are now with a cottage industry of Federalist Society members prepping to become SCOTUS clerks on their way to a federal bench appointment.

But hey that's just personal preference. I like that sort of randomness about a judicial nomination picked "to curry favor" when by all apparent evidence, what happens is the dude gets confirmed and then goes about disappointing potential political friends and foes alike.

I see that that does still occasionally happen today even with the rise of the Federalist Society as precursor of job on the bench: not everyone has been thrilled by all of Roberts' rulings and there are already some by Kavanaugh that raised a few eyebrows or drew sarcastic remarks like "he's just pretending he's even handed" etc. Me, I figure they can all read and some will surprise us pleasantly as time goes on.

There's always the option for another revolution... or so some of the framers suggested. Perhaps we needn't shed blood and can just agree to recall certain judges if they seem to have got too far off the track of the Constitution the rest of us are still reading. Americans are more fair minded about things than we partisans feel like admitting most of the time, and we do seem to have an innate sense about what's a bridge too far or an overreach at the table.
 

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
3,679
0
It's nice to see a level headed discussion on government assistance programs that could benefit the many, not just those at the bottom or at the top. There are still a million things that can be for profit. Healthcare and education don't have to be among those.
I'm all for assistance for people who really needed it. But for instance, education assistance for everyone is the very reason the cost is so high.
 

RichardMZhlubb

Contributor
Nov 26, 2010
209
13,772
0
Washington, DC
So you're so wowed that you're not going to share the link to the piece you quoted? :D
It’s a right-wing hack opinion piece on Foxnews.com from someone who runs a group that pushes for conservative judicial appointments. To give you a sense of the author’s intent, it includes this hilarious line: “Today’s vetting and selection process for Republican-appointed nominees is one that emphasizes originalism and courageous fidelity to traditional legal principles.” To suggest that Trump cares more about jurisprudential integrity than politics when it comes to judicial appointments is just silly.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/carrie-severino-justice-john-paul-stevens-supreme-court-conservative-liberal
 
  • Like
Reactions: LizKat

LizKat

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2004
5,258
28,879
0
Catskill Mountains

Comedy. Just one in a series
The real comedy is how ridiculous it is to try to shift focus from Trump's use of a racist trope (and in disregard or ignorance of the citizenship of his targets and the rule of law in the USA) over to a slightly more acceptable idea that "The Squad" are just people who hold what the right considers risibly left-leaning ideas... too bad the effort went into making such a video before Trump doubled down on his ignorance of Americans' rule of law by suggesting that "The Squad" doesn't even have the right to speak out in public against his political views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincePoppycock