EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1072
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 28 2019 12:37 Tachion wrote: Harris doesn't strike me as the type of person to win the Midwest back from Trump. How would she appeal to the voters that Hillary lost? Union and other worker focused programs. It worked for them before. They've tried the trickle down bullshit under Trump. They will be willing to try something that worked before. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 28 2019 14:28 Starlightsun wrote: I just hope this time the Democratic party lets the voters select their candidate instead of preselecting who will win the primary. I just hope when candidates lose and then endorse the people that defeated them their supporters consider what they have to say in their endorsement rather than assuming they've been blackmailed/are lying/assorted other things. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
townhall.com This is the main thrust of his argument about how bad it is that Trump lost - it's going to hurt Americans. What Democrats won is a continued unsecured border. Americans will continue to be victims of crimes, up to and including being murdered at the hands of people who shouldn’t be in the country in the first place, congratulations. Those criminals will continue to enjoy the protections of Democratic Party officials until they manage to cross the ever-moving line leftists draw to protect illegal aliens (basically a violent crime) and allow authorities to call ICE. Way to go! Opioid overdoses will continue to skyrocket, claiming more American lives every year than died in the entirety of the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq Wars combined. Congratulations, Democrats. I don’t really see how any of that is worth celebrating, but I’m not a “progressive Democrat.” I’m more interested in protecting American citizens than I am with illegal aliens or scoring political points with a race-obsessed base. However, around the middle of the article, the author wrote this: Maybe there’s a way to cut a deal, but at this point the price would be so high it likely wouldn’t be worth it. When the President Trump agreed to reopen government for three weeks because people were hurting, he lost all the leverage he had. People hurting, people calling their Members of Congress complaining about that hurt, was the leverage. I have to say, it's refreshing to see conservative voices so willing to openly state it's acceptable to achieve conservative policy goals by hurting American citizens until Democrats (bleeding heart liberals that they are) can't take it anymore and give in. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote: Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 28 2019 15:22 Wegandi wrote: Voters in this country are so fucked up. Person has XYZ physical characteristic so im more inclined to vote for them and if you don't then you're XYZ ad-hominem; this goes for both houses (though it takes on a bit of a different look for R's). Just get it over with Democrats - put up a Transgender black woman who is Muslim and is a 2nd generation immigrant from who cares where. Who cares about policies, ethics, principle, etc. Just check as many identity boxes and vote for that person. This is how the Democrat Party is going to eat itself alive. I have my popcorn ready for the primaries. (This is why while I don't personally care for most Bernie bros I have an infinite amount more respect for them than the dodo identity folks) The fuck are you talking about? The more I read when Republican voters talk about identity politics the more I'm convinced you're all making it up. I mean, the one people think is likely to go against Trump is Bernie, an old white dude. After him I think Biden's tipped - a slightly less old white dude - and then the field's wide open. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9838 Posts
On January 28 2019 18:43 iamthedave wrote: The fuck are you talking about? The more I read when Republican voters talk about identity politics the more I'm convinced you're all making it up. I mean, the one people think is likely to go against Trump is Bernie, an old white dude. After him I think Biden's tipped - a slightly less old white dude - and then the field's wide open. To be fair, yesterday was all about Harris. I assume this is what they are talking about... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46976547 The propulsion of senator and lawyer Kamala Harris to front-runner status among the Democrats hoping to take on President Donald Trump in 2020 has underlined the resurgent political power of her home state. A California senator is one of the front-runners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. A California congresswoman is Speaker of the House of Representatives. California's new governor is a young, progressive champion promising to offer an alternative to the "corruption and incompetence" of Donald Trump's White House. The so-called Golden State has become solidly Democrat blue, and its politicians are flexing their muscles on the national stage. But this golden opportunity doesn't come without risk for the progressive cause. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45678 Posts
On January 28 2019 15:22 Wegandi wrote: Voters in this country are so fucked up. Person has XYZ physical characteristic so im more inclined to vote for them and if you don't then you're XYZ ad-hominem; this goes for both houses (though it takes on a bit of a different look for R's). Just get it over with Democrats - put up a Transgender black woman who is Muslim and is a 2nd generation immigrant from who cares where. Who cares about policies, ethics, principle, etc. Just check as many identity boxes and vote for that person. This is how the Democrat Party is going to eat itself alive. I have my popcorn ready for the primaries. (This is why while I don't personally care for most Bernie bros I have an infinite amount more respect for them than the dodo identity folks) What are you talking about? Last presidential election, the Democratic primary was between an older white woman and an older white man, with an additional kicker of "it's unfortunate that other older white man didn't run because he was understandably scarred from a family tragedy". Is this just because we had Obama? And maybe now because we enjoy a little diversity in our legislative reps? Do you think the biggest issue that we have with Donald Trump is that he's a cisgendered white male? On January 28 2019 18:48 Jockmcplop wrote: To be fair, yesterday was all about Harris. I assume this is what they are talking about... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46976547 So? Just because there's an article on a new presidential candidate doesn't mean that the main reason she gets votes would be due to her race instead of her policies. That's just projecting one's racism onto others. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 28 2019 20:36 Plansix wrote: And if voters decide to vote for someone because of their background, culture and experiences living in the US (aka, race), why is that a problem? Why do people think white men got elected for the majority of US history? Sure, it was their policies. But the fact that they were white dudes factored into the equation. I want a black guy to run for Republican nominee and get into the final stages. I think that would be a fascinating test of the modern Republican establishment. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On January 28 2019 20:39 iamthedave wrote: I want a black guy to run for Republican nominee and get into the final stages. I think that would be a fascinating test of the modern Republican establishment. It'd be a great test of the Democratic establishment too. It's like the sweating guy hitting the button meme...vote for a minority Republican, or a white Democrat? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9838 Posts
On January 28 2019 15:22 Wegandi wrote: Voters in this country are so fucked up. Person has XYZ physical characteristic so im more inclined to vote for them and if you don't then you're XYZ ad-hominem; this goes for both houses (though it takes on a bit of a different look for R's). Just get it over with Democrats - put up a Transgender black woman who is Muslim and is a 2nd generation immigrant from who cares where. Who cares about policies, ethics, principle, etc. Just check as many identity boxes and vote for that person. This is how the Democrat Party is going to eat itself alive. I have my popcorn ready for the primaries. (This is why while I don't personally care for most Bernie bros I have an infinite amount more respect for them than the dodo identity folks) Do you have any idea how much more qualified, intelligent and resilient you need to be to be a minority politician in the US? Consider reversing your statement and asking for the reasons behind candidates being successful. You would probably find there are plenty of good, valid reasons that people would vote for any specific minority candidate. Could the same be said of all the white men in politics? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12449 Posts
On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote: Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not (Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 28 2019 15:22 Wegandi wrote: This is written without a trace of irony where when there was a presidential candidate of a man who looked black, and became president, was subjugated to birther conspiracy, accusations of being another religion he did was not, throughout his lection, his presidency and all the way up to the next presidential election after his second term, and so many voters in USA voted in the next president to be someone who ran those same conspiracy theories. You are right Wegandi, voters in USA are certainly so fucked up.Voters in this country are so fucked up. Person has XYZ physical characteristic so im more inclined to vote for them and if you don't then you're XYZ ad-hominem; this goes for both houses (though it takes on a bit of a different look for R's). Just get it over with Democrats - put up a Transgender black woman who is Muslim and is a 2nd generation immigrant from who cares where. Who cares about policies, ethics, principle, etc. Just check as many identity boxes and vote for that person. This is how the Democrat Party is going to eat itself alive. I have my popcorn ready for the primaries. (This is why while I don't personally care for most Bernie bros I have an infinite amount more respect for them than the dodo identity folks) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12449 Posts
I find it a bit shortsighted; if we somehow survive these times, these people are going to have a problem explaining why they aren't siding with AOC in the future. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18275 Posts
On January 28 2019 22:40 JimmiC wrote: So your hoping Ben Carson runs again? I think Colin Powell would have had a good shot had he ever decided to run. There is way less African Americans for the Reps but they have a couple. Colin "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Powell? | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On January 28 2019 21:12 mierin wrote: It'd be a great test of the Democratic establishment too. It's like the sweating guy hitting the button meme...vote for a minority Republican, or a white Democrat? Oh I don't think it's actually possible for a non-white candidate to win the Republican primary. I'd only give a snowball's chance in hell to a white woman. But I think it'd be hard for them to resist giving in to their more darker impulses (har har) if they saw the chance of a black man being the Republican presidential nominee. You're right though, an actual race between a black Republican and a white Democrat would be interesting, dynamics wise. On January 28 2019 22:40 JimmiC wrote: So your hoping Ben Carson runs again? I think Colin Powell would have had a good shot had he ever decided to run. There is way less African Americans for the Reps but they have a couple. I meant a serious black contender, someone who could actually win. | ||
| ||
