US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9601

On December 26 2017 21:54 iamthedave wrote:
To the discussion of a few pages now: As an outsider, I think part of the issue is the American left thinks it 'won' the culture war. It's a message I hear frequently, but it's not one I ever really bought. Left wing media certainly seems to dominate in conventional circles, but the American right simply re-invented itself via talk radio, and went a bit more underground. The left largely made right wing talking points into impolite public speech, and that made it harder to actually talk to them, which happened as a result of assuming they'd 'lost' and would slowly fade out over time. Even with Trump in power and an obvious right wing surge happening, that mentality remains. The left thinks it's won the larger war even if it lost this battle, and so the conversation isn't important or even relevant anymore. It's just a matter of time.

Or so I see it, anyway, from observing a lot of these arguments back and forth over the past few hundred pages. For my own money, while I'm left leaning and disagree with a lot of what Danglars/Daunt say, I don't see anything there that's impossible to talk about or even that shocking. Maybe that bit about Africa. That was a bit of a shock.

But in the UK we never had a side 'win' the culture war. The closest was probably Thatcherite Britain and then Blair Britain, where the right and left respectively had a long time in the sun. But UK politics isn't really about 'winning'. At the heart, both sides are fighting to help lead the country, not win a war of ideology. It seems to me a lot of the time that in the US your parties want to win the Presidency so they can say 'OUR IDEOLOGY IS BEST, YAY!' and give little thought to leading/running the country, hence the scorched-earth nature of your politics, where both sides paint the other as cartoon monsters, creating the impression to any sane person that your entire government is led by corrupt, self-interested arseholes. I feel if running the country effectively was really at the heart of their intention they'd be a lot more respectful about their opponents and actually consider working with them instead of both sides strategising government shutdowns, bloc-voting to block as much legislation as possible, and so on and so forth.

All of which is absurd to me. Aren't your senators - regardless of party - meant to be working mostly for the benefit of their constituents anyway?

All the relitigation of the 2016 election misses a pretty important point: While Clinton was a bad candidate, there's no guarantee Sanders would have done much better. I think Trump would have gotten under his skin a lot easier than Clinton, and in America, where the Communist has always been the bigger bogeyman than the Fascist, Sanders has a giant target on his chest, face, and back given how much further left he is than most Democratic candidates. I'm not convinced Sanders could have beat Trump, and the DNC obviously felt the same way. As much as Sanders might have motivated more left and centre people to get to the polls (and young people, obviously), it's equally possible that the threat of a communist takeover of America - which I'm 100% sure would have been the Fox spin - would have done the same thing for the GOP.

EDIT: Not trying to pedestal the UK's political situation or discourse, mind. We have plenty of problems there as well, they're just not as pronounced, in my opinion, as the ones in the US. Brexit has certainly exposed a lot of underlying issues in both parties and our national political discourse.

On December 26 2017 21:54 iamthedave wrote:
To the discussion of a few pages now: As an outsider, I think part of the issue is the American left thinks it 'won' the culture war. It's a message I hear frequently, but it's not one I ever really bought. Left wing media certainly seems to dominate in conventional circles, but the American right simply re-invented itself via talk radio, and went a bit more underground. The left largely made right wing talking points into impolite public speech, and that made it harder to actually talk to them, which happened as a result of assuming they'd 'lost' and would slowly fade out over time. Even with Trump in power and an obvious right wing surge happening, that mentality remains. The left thinks it's won the larger war even if it lost this battle, and so the conversation isn't important or even relevant anymore. It's just a matter of time.

Or so I see it, anyway, from observing a lot of these arguments back and forth over the past few hundred pages. For my own money, while I'm left leaning and disagree with a lot of what Danglars/Daunt say, I don't see anything there that's impossible to talk about or even that shocking. Maybe that bit about Africa. That was a bit of a shock.

But in the UK we never had a side 'win' the culture war. The closest was probably Thatcherite Britain and then Blair Britain, where the right and left respectively had a long time in the sun. But UK politics isn't really about 'winning'. At the heart, both sides are fighting to help lead the country, not win a war of ideology. It seems to me a lot of the time that in the US your parties want to win the Presidency so they can say 'OUR IDEOLOGY IS BEST, YAY!' and give little thought to leading/running the country, hence the scorched-earth nature of your politics, where both sides paint the other as cartoon monsters, creating the impression to any sane person that your entire government is led by corrupt, self-interested arseholes. I feel if running the country effectively was really at the heart of their intention they'd be a lot more respectful about their opponents and actually consider working with them instead of both sides strategising government shutdowns, bloc-voting to block as much legislation as possible, and so on and so forth.

All of which is absurd to me. Aren't your senators - regardless of party - meant to be working mostly for the benefit of their constituents anyway?

All the relitigation of the 2016 election misses a pretty important point: While Clinton was a bad candidate, there's no guarantee Sanders would have done much better. I think Trump would have gotten under his skin a lot easier than Clinton, and in America, where the Communist has always been the bigger bogeyman than the Fascist, Sanders has a giant target on his chest, face, and back given how much further left he is than most Democratic candidates. I'm not convinced Sanders could have beat Trump, and the DNC obviously felt the same way. As much as Sanders might have motivated more left and centre people to get to the polls (and young people, obviously), it's equally possible that the threat of a communist takeover of America - which I'm 100% sure would have been the Fox spin - would have done the same thing for the GOP.

EDIT: Not trying to pedestal the UK's political situation or discourse, mind. We have plenty of problems there as well, they're just not as pronounced, in my opinion, as the ones in the US. Brexit has certainly exposed a lot of underlying issues in both parties and our national political discourse.

On December 27 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Women voting was a "cultural issue" to conservatives

Interracial marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives

Gay marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives.

Every time, they insist on adopting unsustainable positions. It's their own fault for constantly pulling this shit. Everyone could see a mile away all these issues I listed would eventually go the correct way. It's their own damn fault for their stupid culture war.

On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:


Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids.

On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:


Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids.

On December 27 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:

Best me to it. Women’s suffrage and interracial marriage? Let’s talk about how liberals are secretly mad that the proletariat revolution isn’t underway. Never understood the culture war and will never understand Trump.

On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:


Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids.

On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:


Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids.

On December 27 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:

Best me to it. Women’s suffrage and interracial marriage? Let’s talk about how liberals are secretly mad that the proletariat revolution isn’t underway. Never understood the culture war and will never understand Trump.

On December 26 2017 21:54 iamthedave wrote:
To the discussion of a few pages now: As an outsider, I think part of the issue is the American left thinks it 'won' the culture war. It's a message I hear frequently, but it's not one I ever really bought. Left wing media certainly seems to dominate in conventional circles, but the American right simply re-invented itself via talk radio, and went a bit more underground. The left largely made right wing talking points into impolite public speech, and that made it harder to actually talk to them, which happened as a result of assuming they'd 'lost' and would slowly fade out over time. Even with Trump in power and an obvious right wing surge happening, that mentality remains. The left thinks it's won the larger war even if it lost this battle, and so the conversation isn't important or even relevant anymore. It's just a matter of time.

Or so I see it, anyway, from observing a lot of these arguments back and forth over the past few hundred pages. For my own money, while I'm left leaning and disagree with a lot of what Danglars/Daunt say, I don't see anything there that's impossible to talk about or even that shocking. Maybe that bit about Africa. That was a bit of a shock.

But in the UK we never had a side 'win' the culture war. The closest was probably Thatcherite Britain and then Blair Britain, where the right and left respectively had a long time in the sun. But UK politics isn't really about 'winning'. At the heart, both sides are fighting to help lead the country, not win a war of ideology. It seems to me a lot of the time that in the US your parties want to win the Presidency so they can say 'OUR IDEOLOGY IS BEST, YAY!' and give little thought to leading/running the country, hence the scorched-earth nature of your politics, where both sides paint the other as cartoon monsters, creating the impression to any sane person that your entire government is led by corrupt, self-interested arseholes. I feel if running the country effectively was really at the heart of their intention they'd be a lot more respectful about their opponents and actually consider working with them instead of both sides strategising government shutdowns, bloc-voting to block as much legislation as possible, and so on and so forth.

All of which is absurd to me. Aren't your senators - regardless of party - meant to be working mostly for the benefit of their constituents anyway?

All the relitigation of the 2016 election misses a pretty important point: While Clinton was a bad candidate, there's no guarantee Sanders would have done much better. I think Trump would have gotten under his skin a lot easier than Clinton, and in America, where the Communist has always been the bigger bogeyman than the Fascist, Sanders has a giant target on his chest, face, and back given how much further left he is than most Democratic candidates. I'm not convinced Sanders could have beat Trump, and the DNC obviously felt the same way. As much as Sanders might have motivated more left and centre people to get to the polls (and young people, obviously), it's equally possible that the threat of a communist takeover of America - which I'm 100% sure would have been the Fox spin - would have done the same thing for the GOP.

EDIT: Not trying to pedestal the UK's political situation or discourse, mind. We have plenty of problems there as well, they're just not as pronounced, in my opinion, as the ones in the US. Brexit has certainly exposed a lot of underlying issues in both parties and our national political discourse.

On December 27 2017 02:00 Nyxisto wrote:


May I remind you that a candidate in Alaska won only by a 1% margin against a guy who molested children, thought that slavery was cool, rode to the voting booth on a horse, and started to sign cult like chants with his voters after he lost and won the primaries against moneyed interests?

That and well.. Trump. This isn't a straw man, people like this are basically taking over the Republican party. The last modern conservative in the US is David Brooks probably

On December 27 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:

Which blue states fought to preserve communism? The comparison is garbage. Listing things red States actively fought for recently is entirely different from listing ideology.

On December 27 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:

Many blue states also fought to preserve segregation and vestiges of slavery. You’re jumping off a cliff trying to justify idiotic conceptions of the culture war. I think you know exactly what dave meant so stop trolling.

On December 27 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:

Many blue states also fought to preserve segregation and vestiges of slavery. You’re jumping off a cliff trying to justify idiotic conceptions of the culture war. I think you know exactly what dave meant so stop trolling.

On December 27 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
The sad thing about this is that for all intents and purposes it seems like folk like Mohdoo are 100% serious about their absurd characterization of anyone and everyone they don't agree with as just the descendant of every historical bad person they don't like. I suppose this is just an inevitable reality of people who are so convinced that they are going to win in the end (a position that has been directly stated) and that every "loss" is a temporary setback against the forces of evil.

On December 27 2017 02:16 IyMoon wrote:


Which ones? I would actually like to read up on that