Jump to content
GCA 13 winners announced!
Play in Pictionary Saturday at 7pm EST!

Sign in to follow this  

About This Club

SBC's own club for discussing anything and everything regarding politics, on any level. We invite anyone interested in the subject to join!

  1. What's new in this club
  2. Time to really sound the alarm on women's rights. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/19/18412384/georgia-abortion-heartbeat-bill-ohio-2019-iowa https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/14/politics/alabama-senate-abortion/index.html I outright challenge anyone who may be reading to explain to me how this is a good thing. If we have any pro-life people here, I hope you have an ironclad case to make.
  3. Back in October, President Trump reached a new deal with Canada and Mexico to create a new NAFTA. They changed the name, because if Trump is good at anything, it's marketing. He knew that people are really against NAFTA for destroying the working class in this country, so they rebranded it as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). That's really the same thing, but I digress. Let's break it down. The weird part? The USMCA is basically NAFTA with five new provisions. Two are okay, one is good, and two are horrible provisions that were taken from the TPP proposal. This, coming from the guy who ran on attacking Hillary for her favoring of TPP. As he pretends to be for the working class, he does this. Anyway, let's talk about the changes. Country-of-origin rules: Automobiles must have 75% of their parts manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs, up from 62.5% under NAFTA. I'm calling this one a mediocre change. If you really wanted to bring back American manufacturing, you'd have to be more aggressive than this. This is a minor tweak to NAFTA, and doesn't get to the heart of what Trump claims he was gonna do. It's not a big deal, and in the end, the heart of it is still NAFTA. Labor provisions: 40-45% of all automobile parts have to be made by workers who earn at least $16/hr by 2023. Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extend labor protections to migrant workers, and protect women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations. For me, this one is actually the other mediocre change, because this is already the case for the overwhelming majority of jobs in NAFTA. Really, it's another thing Trump can point to to claim that he's very pro-worker, even though the change in practice is pretty minimal. US farmers get more access to the Canadian dairy market: Definitely a positive change! Very good for US industry, and if you're America's president, you should be a fierce advocate for US industry, not just the business owners, but the workers as well. With any actual step in the right direction for helping US industry, I'll take it, and I'll give anyone credit for it. Intellectual property and digital trade: The deal extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author, up from 50. It also extends the period that a pharmaceutical drug can be protected from generic competition. This may sound a bit confusing, but what it means in practice is a HUGE giveaway to Big Pharma. One of its impacts is that Canada has been shafted on the cost of prescription drugs. We get price-gouged for medication to hell and back in this country, and now, Trump made it to where Canadians feel that pain as well. This serves no purpose beyond being a giant giveaway to pharma companies, and that's that. Preservation of the investor-state dispute settlement: This is an atrocious change, and it's the heart of what so many people objected to TPP over. It allows multinationals to sue the governments they operate under when those governments put new regulations into law. It both guts anti-pollution efforts and damages US sovereignty. Oil/gas and telecom industries are given some of the most power in this system. In other words, if a government is messing with your profits, just sue the government to get them to pay you back. These cases are judged by international tribunals in which the corporations get to choose the judges, so by definition, they give themselves the ability to put themselves above the law. Some of these changes were positive changes. Some were faux positive, and codifying something that was already the case. The others are horrible. Most of all, though: everything else in the USMCA is literally the exact same as NAFTA. It's the exact same trade deal outside of these provisions. Trump made it a habit of (correctly!) ripping our terrible trade deals on the campaign trail, but he certainly isn't bucking the establishment on that front, or any others, for that matter. So what does he do? He takes NAFTA, changes a few things up, and suddenly, it somehow goes from the worst deal in our history to the best. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Meet the new NAFTA, almost identical to the old NAFTA.
  4. OWM -3 -5.03 G4y -5.13 -4.15 sbl -5 -4.92 Hawk -5.5 -5.13 Slug -7.75 -6.97 Ben -2.88 -5.74 PB -9 -6 Trophy -6 -4 RDSP -5.88 -5.69 Hal -6 -6 Cake -0.5 -3 Homie 3 0 Local -5.38 -6.62 jjs -1 -2.31 Kevin -2.88 -3.64
  5. you can barely even read this shit now lmao OWM -3 -5.03 G4y -5.13 -4.15 sbl -2 -5 Hawk -5.5 -5.13 Slug -7.75 -6.97 Ben -2.88 -5.74 PB -9 -6 Trophy -6 -4 RDSP -5.88 -5.69 Hal -6 -6
  6. Trophy economic: -6.0 social: -4.0 PB economic: -9.0 social: -6.0 Ben economic: -2.88 social: -5.74 Slug economic: -7.75 social: -6.97 Hawk economic: -5.5 social: -5.13 sbl economic: -2.0 social: -5.0 G4y economic: -5.13 social: -4.15 OWM economic: -3.0 social: -5.03
  7. As the apparent heir to tvguy's throne as Mr. Political of SBC, I guess it's pretty obligatory for me to do this. Here's what I just got taking it just now:
  8. Simple, post your numbers and I'll put you on the big chart. For example, my numbers are: Economic Left/Right: -3.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03 That puts me right here: Have fun. I'm expecting basically everyone here to be in the bottom left.
  9. https://twitter.com/mikegravel At 88, Mike Gravel is a bit of an unusual candidate for this upcoming election cycle. Long ago, he was a Senator from Alaska (1969-1981), and today, we might consider him the intellectual forerunner to Tulsi Gabbard and her brand of anti-interventionism. Before losing re-election, he was a very outspoken critic of the Vietnam War, and sent shockwaves in 1971 when he publicized a huge portion of the Pentagon Papers by reading them in a congressional committee hearing, thus putting them into the permanent public record. Then he ran for president in 2008, sharing the stage with Obama, Hillary, Joe Biden, and others. What happened then truly has to be seen to be believed. Now, a group of teenage Chapo Trap House fans have gotten him to run once again in 2020 (and they run his Twitter account as well), with a peculiar catch: Gravel and his team have no intention of winning the nomination. Instead, they want to get him onto the Democratic debate stage, and let him once again rip American foreign policy and corruption. Once the debates are over, he'll drop out of the race, and (probably) endorse Bernie Sanders for the actual nomination. To get into the first debate requires a candidate to have 65,000 people donate to them, so if you want to see Mike Gravel and Company tear up the Democratic field this election cycle, go here to donate! Since the focus here is on how many people donate rather than how much, you can give however much you want; whatever's left after all of the campaign's expenses are paid off will go to helping get clean water back in Flint, Michigan. Also, join the official Gravel campaign Discord here! Some of his campaign staff are on the server, and it's growing quite well. In short: Spent a buck on a campaign My friends love do the same I found a dude, and I love his name We don't want more of the same Rather go and play this game Gravel Gang, Gravel Gang, Gravel Gang i'm sorry but also not sorry for that
  10. You know, some people have been asking me about what my future plans are going to be. Well, I'd like to take the time to make a definitely serious announcement. I have decided that I will be starting an exploratory committee to look into running for President in 2020 as a Libertarian candidate. I'm also starting an exploratory committee to look into the 2024 Mississippi senatorial primary nomination for the Democratic Party. Also, I'll be looking into an exploratory committee committee to look into running for Circuit Clerk of Hinds County, Mississippi as a moderate Republican. So, there it is. For the next two to six years, I'm going on a listening tour. I'll listen to you, the various voters, telling me what I should do. Until then, I hope to see you. Or rather, hear you.
  11. UPDATE: Yang just appeared today on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast for a pretty solid amount of conversation. I'm yet to watch it, but I have high hopes.
  12. https://www.yang2020.com/ Here's someone I introduced the folks on Discord to already. Andrew Yang is an entrepeneur (he's founded a nonprofit fellowship called Venture for America) running in the Democratic primary for President, and he's my new favorite in terms of policy. He's thinking decades ahead of every other politician in terms of what issues he puts front and center. Yang's very comprehensive policy platform focuses on three main issues: Universal basic income (UBI), or the "Freedom Dividend": With no strings attached, every US citizen would receive $1,000 a month from the government. The main reason for this is the creeping automation of jobs around the country, which ends up putting many people into unemployment through no fault of their own. Single-payer healthcare/Medicare for All: If you're tuned into politics, you've probably heard about this already. As it stands right now, our healthcare system in America is a disaster. It's run by insurance companies that don't care to do much more than make a profit, even if it means letting people die. This problem doesn't exist in the rest of the developed world, where countries have implemented some form of single-payer healthcare. "Medicare for All" is the most popular proposal to implement single-payer healthcare in America. It involves expanding Medicare, the health insurance program provided to senior citizens, to be accessed by all US citizens. It would save us money, and likely give us better health outcomes as well. Human-centered capitalism: Put simply, this is all about making the economy and corporations serve the people rather than just their own interests. This is a collection of policies, including: measuring economic success by the state of working people rather than the state of corporations (as we do now, with statistics such as the GDP and the stock market); appointing overseers with integrity to regulate the economy; and incentivize people to find new ways of raising our standards of living. Some of his other positions include, but are definitely not limited to: Green New Deal on climate change Broad criminal justice reform Promotion of LGBT rights On guns: improved background checks, assault weapons restrictions (?), raising minimum age of purchase to 21, gun buyback program, and more Paid maternity leave by law Abortion rights Increase teachers' pay Legalize and regulate marijuana Puerto Rican statehood Oversight on fake news (?) Equip every cop with a body camera Monitor mental health of White House staff Sunset old/obsolete laws Repurpose and/or cut military spending Free or much cheaper community college Pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants Promote nuclear energy Modernize the voting process Make taxes fun Enforce net neutrality In short, Andrew Yang is what Trump pretends to be: an entrepeneur with great ideas for improving America, and who can run it like an efficient business. Even though his campaign is a long shot, Yang should be allowed to participate in the 2020 Democratic primary and its debates. If you agree, head over to Change.org and sign this petition.
  13. This was originally posted on Hawkbit's blog on 9/29/18. You just couldn't leave it alone, could you? Now outside of the live format, I have a much more in-depth response. If your argument is that "the government shouldn't be the thing to protect you from shit", the whole point of having laws is to protect you from shit. That's partially the reason why assault, rape, and murder are illegal. Now, I'm not comparing this case to those things, but guess what? It's not an argument to bring up "government" as a pejorative. Or rather, in your case, it's not an argument to constantly repeat the mantra "the government points a gun at your head". That's what you think it is. You think that you can just say "THE GOVERNMENT! THEY POINT A GUN AT YOUR HEAD!", and then say "yep, that's it! Obviously, whatever side the government is on is incorrect and tyrannical! Case closed, discussion over!" What I also find funny is that, in the context of making this broader argument about how the government should stay out, you admit that the government passed the Civil Rights Act to combat Jim Crow laws in the South. Yeah, that's the point, isn't it? The question of "should someone be able to deny a black person a cake, or anything, just because they're black?" formed the crux of the debate about the Southern position in the days of segregation, and in the days of Jim Crow. Their justification was "no, it's our freedom to deny people for any reason we want, and if someone is black, we don't have to serve their kind!" I would ask how this situation is any different. Your response, as of now, is that they were only specifically talking about race in this era. Which, no, they weren't. But let's just say they were, for the sake of your argument. Guess what? There's still no way for you to argue your way around the principle of that. The principle of what they were discussing in the era of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts is the same principle that applies today, when it comes to gay people. That, of course is "should you be able to deny people service for arbitrary characteristics that they're powerless to change?" If I were to randomly decide that I don't serve people with blue eyes, people would look at me, thinking that that's the dumbest thing they've ever heard in their life. "That person can't help it. Why would you discriminate on such a silly basis? That makes no sense." The thing, Chris, is that nobody's saying that, if, for example, someone comes into a store and starts knocking over shelves, you should be forced to serve the asshole who's causing havoc. You're well within your rights to kick that person out. Their destruction of store shelves is not an arbitrary characteristic that they can't change. You can kick them out for that. The real crux of the issue is "should you be able to deny service to somebody for arbitrary characteristics that they can't change?", and the government decided "no, you can't." That's what a protected class is! Then, the fact that you had to bring up "should a non-Christian baker be forced to bake a cake with a Christian message" shows how you don't understand the issue by any stretch of the imagination. Your choice of religion is not something you're born with. Your choice of religion is not an arbitrary characteristic that you're powerless to change. You choose what your faith is. If someone from the Taliban decided to come in your store, you're well within your rights to refuse them as well. But if someone with blue eyes, brown skin, an attraction to the same sex came in, that's not something they can change or help. Therefore, they're a protected class, and they should be protected by law, and yes, the person should have to serve them. It's such a sloppy dodge to say "well, at the time of the Civil Rights Act, they were just specifically talking about race." First of all, they weren't, and second, even if they were, the principle of that case still stands. If you admit that the principle of "you should serve somebody if they have an arbitrary characteristic that they can't change" applies for black people, why wouldn't that be the case for gay people as well? I know exactly why. You made it clear in our de facto debate. "There's a difference between race and sexual orientation. [...] Skin color is morally neutral. Homosexuality is sinful." You simply don't get that being gay is an arbitrary characteristic, and you think it's something that one can just "overcome." Or, you know that that's not the case, and you don't care, because you want the world to obey your religion. This is a pattern I've noticed with you, Chris. Ever since I started debating you in May 2017, every single time, you do nothing but work backwards from your pre-determined conclusion. Your pre-determined conclusion, of course, is the following: "Liberalism sucks, conservatism is awesome, fundamentalist Christianity is awesome, and I'm going to reject anything that gets in the way of that!" By the way, for someone who claims to be so against identity politics, do you know who actually is playing identity politics in this case? Whoever would reject service to a gay person. That's them playing identity politics. That's them saying "I don't like gay people, so I'll single you out because of your identity." You're siding with the people who play identity politics. You know who's not? The gay people who want to be served, simply saying "treat me like you treat everyone else." That's what they're asking for. So, Mr. Anti-Identity Politics, you're playing identity politics if you side with the people who reject service based on identity. Whether you like it or not - facts really don't care about your feelings - you have to understand what a protected class is. You have to understand that your bringing up of "the non-Christian baker vs. the Christian" in this context is ridiculous. Being of a certain faith is not an arbitrary characteristic you can't change. Being black, white, or gay, all arbitrary characteristics you can't change, whether you want to accept that fact or not. To really show how backwards this "it's freedom to deny service to people based on arbitrary characteristics" ideology is, all you have to do is imagine just a slightly-extreme scenario to realize what your true beliefs are on this issue. Back in the day, if a black family had a car breakdown in a predominantly-white area of Mississippi, imagine if they walked for 4 miles in 95-degree heat to a gas station, only to have the gas station employees tell them "we don't serve your kind." Then they try to go to the diner next door, and the diner does the same. They can't get food, a drink, gas, it's 95 degrees outside, and no one will help them. So, guess what? If you're sticking by your principles on this issue (which, I'm quite convinced that you don't have real principles by this point), you'd say "#FREEDOM! They have the freedom to deny those people." I would guess that most people, even most conservatives, given the facts of that situation, would say "you know what? You should have to serve them in that situation." That's all anyone is saying. When it comes to gays? Exact same philosophy. You shouldn't be legally allowed to reject service based on arbitrary characteristics is the driving point here. That's why we have protected classes, for people who've been historically discriminated against. Beyond that, the principle of "you shouldn't be legally allowed to reject service based on arbitrary characteristics" is what matters, and that's the correct principle, at least to people who actually care about living in a modern civilization, rather than your 1950's social fever dream. ... As a closing statement: for my stance, Chris, you can screech at me all you want about how "the government points a gun at your head", but guess what? I'm not going to buy into the fearmongering any longer. I need you to accept the fact: you're done. As shown by making a complete fool of yourself in our DPRSBC debates, you not only can't hold up in a debate against leftists like myself in the world of hard facts, but you will never admit that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're far out of your league, while, at the same time, you try to convince yourself that you have the answers to everything. In 2017, you always talked about how SBMers couldn't "handle [your] free speech," and wanted to just shut you up instead. After having more than a year's worth of discussion with me, do you still think "the left" can't handle your free speech? Or were/are you in over your head, thinking that no truly politically-minded person on the site would actually call your bluff? Deep down, you know the answer. Let's see if you still have the bravery to use your free speech, and give it. EDIT: DS Guy read this blog and responded to it via Twitter. View the entire resulting crapfest here:
  14.  

×
×
  • Create New...