|
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 |
On January 28 2019 22:14 Nebuchad wrote:
To be fair to Wegandi, which is not a sentence I often have cause to write, I have seen a bunch of reactions on Twitter that basically amount to NotAMan2020, and one of the "advantages" that Harris seems to have over Bernie is that she's a woman. I see these reactions as mainly strategical; since a lot of the mainstream positions of the democratic runners are going to be lifted from the "unrealistic" platform that Bernie had in 2016, and Bernie is likely to be one of the runners, we're going to need to explain why we're going with someone else, who could be an opportunist, when we have the possibility to vote for the original article who clearly believes it. NotAMan2020 gives you that cover, cause Bernie is most definitely an old cis white dude. And if you're wondering if we'll be called misogynistic if we happen to support Bernie, well that's already started.
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.
i’m not convinced that isn’t a just a good reason to vote for someone. in any other capacity, introducing more diversity into a position has proven benefits.
of course, that should never be the only reason. but it is certainly allowed to be one, and a good one. i had just read this weekend about some 20 year long study of fortune 500 companies, and those with female executives literally have higher profits. which, business savvy is apparently a big plus for GOP voters, as we know(mostly kidding on this last part.)
the typical knee jerk reaction to condemn decisions made by [protected class here] doesn’t really serve in this context, imo. unless the decision is made only on that qualification. but using it in a broader argument with other reasons, one of them being [insert minority here] should serve as a totally viable argument. frankly i’m definitely on board for more non old-white-men in the oval.
although i think you’re spot on, and these same people should obviously be cheering on for AOC. not because she’s qualified simply for being a woman, but it’s already crystal clear how just having a new perspective to see inside has changed things for the better, albeit it in small strides so far.
|
|
|
On January 28 2019 23:00 Plansix wrote:
All the reports I have read on 2020 are the democrats care about basically one thing: Can the person beat Donald Trump? They want to win. Then after they win, they want to push for specific political outcomes. But winning first. I'm sure there is some noise on twitter about who should or should not run. But twitter is twitter. It barely mirrors reality.
I'm sure they say they only care about beating Trump, but surely you don't believe them? Politics are still politics. Nobody influential is going to go "I care so much about beating Trump that I'll change my pick in the primary", it's always going to be "I care so much about beating Trump that you should change your pick in the primary"...
Twitter contains a lot of bots nowadays. If there's a narrative going on there, it's very often a narrative that someone wants pushed.
|
On January 28 2019 23:20 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 22:14 Nebuchad wrote:
To be fair to Wegandi, which is not a sentence I often have cause to write, I have seen a bunch of reactions on Twitter that basically amount to NotAMan2020, and one of the "advantages" that Harris seems to have over Bernie is that she's a woman. I see these reactions as mainly strategical; since a lot of the mainstream positions of the democratic runners are going to be lifted from the "unrealistic" platform that Bernie had in 2016, and Bernie is likely to be one of the runners, we're going to need to explain why we're going with someone else, who could be an opportunist, when we have the possibility to vote for the original article who clearly believes it. NotAMan2020 gives you that cover, cause Bernie is most definitely an old cis white dude. And if you're wondering if we'll be called misogynistic if we happen to support Bernie, well that's already started.
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. i’m not convicted that isn’t a just a good reason to vote for someone. in any other capacity, introducing more diversity into a position has proven benefits. of course, that should never be the only reason. but it is certainly allowed to be one, and a good one. i had just read this weekend about some 20 year long study of fortune 500 companies, and those with female executives literally have higher profits. which, business savvy is apparently a big plus for GOP voters, as we know(mostly kidding on this last part.) the typical knee jerk reaction to condemn decisions made by [protected class here] doesn’t really serve in this context, imo. unless the decision is made only on that qualification. but using it in a broader argument with other reasons, one of them being [insert minority here] should serve as a totally viable argument. frankly i’m definitely on board for more non old-white-men in the oval.
This I can totally agree with. I really wish all the fucked up shit about Tulsi Gabbard hadn't come up :/
|
On January 28 2019 23:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 23:00 Plansix wrote:
All the reports I have read on 2020 are the democrats care about basically one thing: Can the person beat Donald Trump? They want to win. Then after they win, they want to push for specific political outcomes. But winning first. I'm sure there is some noise on twitter about who should or should not run. But twitter is twitter. It barely mirrors reality. I'm sure they say they only care about beating Trump, but surely you don't believe them? Politics are still politics. Nobody influential is going to go "I care so much about beating Trump that I'll change my pick in the primary", it's always going to be "I care so much about beating Trump that you should change your pick in the primary"... Twitter contains a lot of bots nowadays. If there's a narrative going on there, it's very often a narrative that someone wants pushed.
I am quoting reporters who have gone out to different part of the country during and after the mid terms. So yes, I believe the voters those reporters talked to. And those voters said that electability was a factor for them. Which means that a lot of voters are not just concerned with what they want, but if other people will vote for their chosen candidate, which is an important factor if someone wants political change.
|
On January 28 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 23:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 23:00 Plansix wrote:
All the reports I have read on 2020 are the democrats care about basically one thing: Can the person beat Donald Trump? They want to win. Then after they win, they want to push for specific political outcomes. But winning first. I'm sure there is some noise on twitter about who should or should not run. But twitter is twitter. It barely mirrors reality. I'm sure they say they only care about beating Trump, but surely you don't believe them? Politics are still politics. Nobody influential is going to go "I care so much about beating Trump that I'll change my pick in the primary", it's always going to be "I care so much about beating Trump that you should change your pick in the primary"... Twitter contains a lot of bots nowadays. If there's a narrative going on there, it's very often a narrative that someone wants pushed. I am quoting reporters who have gone out to different part of the country during and after the mid terms. So yes, I believe the voters those reporters talked to. And those voters said that electability was a factor for them. Which means that a lot of voters are not just concerned with what they want, but if other people will vote for their chosen candidate, which is an important factor if someone wants political change.
Fair enough, didn't realize you were talking about voters. But in that case it becomes a very adaptable concern. All of the leading candidates are crushing Trump in the polls if I recall correctly, the more liberal voters can talk about how a centrist position appeals to more voters and therefore gives them better electability, and the more social democrat ones can talk about how people obviously want change and they represent change so that gives them better electability. Ultimately there is still a policy decision behind the electability pick.
|
On January 28 2019 23:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 23:36 Plansix wrote:On January 28 2019 23:26 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 23:00 Plansix wrote:
All the reports I have read on 2020 are the democrats care about basically one thing: Can the person beat Donald Trump? They want to win. Then after they win, they want to push for specific political outcomes. But winning first. I'm sure there is some noise on twitter about who should or should not run. But twitter is twitter. It barely mirrors reality. I'm sure they say they only care about beating Trump, but surely you don't believe them? Politics are still politics. Nobody influential is going to go "I care so much about beating Trump that I'll change my pick in the primary", it's always going to be "I care so much about beating Trump that you should change your pick in the primary"... Twitter contains a lot of bots nowadays. If there's a narrative going on there, it's very often a narrative that someone wants pushed. I am quoting reporters who have gone out to different part of the country during and after the mid terms. So yes, I believe the voters those reporters talked to. And those voters said that electability was a factor for them. Which means that a lot of voters are not just concerned with what they want, but if other people will vote for their chosen candidate, which is an important factor if someone wants political change. Fair enough, didn't realize you were talking about voters. But in that case it becomes a very adaptable concern. All of the leading candidates are crushing Trump in the polls if I recall correctly, the more liberal voters can talk about how a centrist position appeals to more voters and therefore gives them better electability, and the more social democrat ones can talk about how people obviously want change and they represent change so that gives them better electability. Ultimately there is still a policy decision behind the electability pick.
The political leadership is going to have their fights and debates about who is best to put at the front of the party. They are going to mirror voters, who are also having the debate. I really don't get worried about it any more because any effort to keep someone out of the running become public and the leadership knows this. But there has to be acceptance that centrists cannot win without the more socialist left and the left cannot win without the centrists. So if there is going to be a fight about the direction of the party, have that fight. But make sure that after it is over everyone isn’t so burned that they have nothing left to fight the Republicans.
Now these third party candidates. Fuck those grifters.
|
I find your optimism to be weird. There will be a debate among voters for sure, but I see no reason to assume that there'll be such a debate among the political leaders or that they will mirror voters no matter what. It's been a while since they've sided in favor of liberalism, and that will be taken into account when they push candidates. In a lot of cases, regardless of their voter base.
|
I’m not quite as cynical about political parties and that they can change. Look at the Republicans. 15 years ago they would never have talked about cutting entitlements. Now they are all about it. Democrats are the same party that debated how to fix healthcare for two years and didn’t land on single payer because of one asshole in the senate where they needed 60 votes. And that asshole made it his mission to kill single payer, which sort of gives you an idea of how likely it was. I get that people are suspicious of the party leadership, but it’s not like the left hasn’t been making gains since the early 2000s.
I am also exhausted with the small but loud subset of progressives that are desperate for any reason to throw their hands up in the air and claim the Democratic leadership out to get them. They are exhausting.
|
United States43953 Posts
On January 28 2019 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Some folks in the Democratic Party and the left are opposing her because of her race and gender. The left has its own problems with race and gender, which it refuses to talk about.
Also all those things are also true.
Or they’re pragmatists. A black woman from California? Are we even trying to win the electoral college? Which Trump voters are we hoping to flip?
|
the ones who voted for obama, i suppose.
|
On January 29 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Some folks in the Democratic Party and the left are opposing her because of her race and gender. The left has its own problems with race and gender, which it refuses to talk about.
Also all those things are also true. Or they’re pragmatists. A black woman from California? Are we even trying to win the electoral college? Which Trump voters are we hoping to flip?
It is this weird thing when racist and sexist people use the language of pragmatist to sound reasonable. Like all those folks who talk about border security and protecting western culture.
|
A further problem is that if there are enough racists, the pragmatic thing might be to cater to the racists. Which sucks and means that you shouldn't always be pragmatic.
|
|
|
The last part where it calls for unionization makes me like it more.
|
On January 29 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
I’m not quite as cynical about political parties and that they can change. Look at the Republicans. 15 years ago they would never have talked about cutting entitlements. Now they are all about it. Democrats are the same party that debated how to fix healthcare for two years and didn’t land on single payer because of one asshole in the senate where they needed 60 votes. And that asshole made it his mission to kill single payer, which sort of gives you an idea of how likely it was. I get that people are suspicious of the party leadership, but it’s not like the left hasn’t been making gains since the early 2000s.
I am also exhausted with the small but loud subset of progressives that are desperate for any reason to throw their hands up in the air and claim the Democratic leadership out to get them. They are exhausting.
I don't have a list of all the achievements of the left in the US in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that the large majority of those gains are on social issues, which is not something that we can use to distinguish between social democracy and liberalism. When it comes to economics, liberalism has been thriving, as the idea supported by the republicans and the democrats (in both cases with some caveats). There is a shift happening now, as the base of the democratic party is now so clearly on the side of social democrats that all candidates feel they have to offer a super progressive platform to have a chance of conquering them. But that's not the same type of shift as the republicans now saying they are willing to cut entitlements; cutting entitlements is and has always been a logical follow-up of trickle down economics: with tax cuts and less revenue, you were always going to need less spending. Shifting economically leftwards is not a logical follow-up to what the democratic party has been doing. They are going to do so if they are forced to, not because they want to.
You may be exhausted by this struggle between social democracy and liberalism but it's an idea that is supported by facts, and that is also coherent when it comes to ideologies. Liberals and social democrats are not natural allies, in all countries where they don't form a single party - which is everywhere but the US I feel like? - they very frequently oppose each other. From the point of view of a capitalist, and all liberal donors are capitalists, fascism is less threatening than socialism. Your society shifting to the right is never as threatening as your society shifting to the left. Some people, mainly minorities, will be hurt by your society shifting to the right; but you're on top of society, you're going to be fine. At least you're going to be fine a lot longer than you would be if your society started shifting left. It is in your interest that the economic situation stays unchanged, but if change has to happen, it is in your interest that the change is rightward, even if you're not a fan of the rightwing. You can see those conflicting ideas reflected in the politics of the democratic party so, so often.
|
We got a new tweet from Trump which is a real keeper. In it he both implies that he is "the smartest person" in the US (or maybe the world?) and openly admits to violating the emoluments clause. Cant make this shit up. Hopefully that House emoluments investigation ramps up quickly. Seems like to easiest and quickest way to tank him while waiting for Mueller.
|
On January 29 2019 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
I’m not quite as cynical about political parties and that they can change. Look at the Republicans. 15 years ago they would never have talked about cutting entitlements. Now they are all about it. Democrats are the same party that debated how to fix healthcare for two years and didn’t land on single payer because of one asshole in the senate where they needed 60 votes. And that asshole made it his mission to kill single payer, which sort of gives you an idea of how likely it was. I get that people are suspicious of the party leadership, but it’s not like the left hasn’t been making gains since the early 2000s.
I am also exhausted with the small but loud subset of progressives that are desperate for any reason to throw their hands up in the air and claim the Democratic leadership out to get them. They are exhausting. You may be exhausted by this struggle between social democracy and liberalism .
When the fuck did I say this ? I said I was tired of the people who instantly run out of the room crying about how the democratic leadership is against progressives. Luckily that isn’t any of the progressive Reps that were elected, so it is mostly clowns on twitter who don't understand that politics is the forever fight.
Don’t try to rope me into these debates about capital “P” Politics when I am talking about the nitty gritty of effecting political change within a party.
|
On January 29 2019 01:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 01:11 KwarK wrote:On January 28 2019 11:37 Plansix wrote:
Some folks in the Democratic Party and the left are opposing her because of her race and gender. The left has its own problems with race and gender, which it refuses to talk about.
Also all those things are also true. Or they’re pragmatists. A black woman from California? Are we even trying to win the electoral college? Which Trump voters are we hoping to flip? It is this weird thing when racist and sexist people use the language of pragmatist to sound reasonable. Like all those folks who talk about border security and protecting western culture.
“pragmatists” trying to sound “reasonable?” how weird!
its fine if you take this stance P6 but then you can’t lean on pragmatism-based appeals to vote for whatever Democrat is chosen because we a FPTP electoral system and we need to stop trump’s reelection etc etc
|
On January 29 2019 01:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2019 00:45 Plansix wrote:
I’m not quite as cynical about political parties and that they can change. Look at the Republicans. 15 years ago they would never have talked about cutting entitlements. Now they are all about it. Democrats are the same party that debated how to fix healthcare for two years and didn’t land on single payer because of one asshole in the senate where they needed 60 votes. And that asshole made it his mission to kill single payer, which sort of gives you an idea of how likely it was. I get that people are suspicious of the party leadership, but it’s not like the left hasn’t been making gains since the early 2000s.
I am also exhausted with the small but loud subset of progressives that are desperate for any reason to throw their hands up in the air and claim the Democratic leadership out to get them. They are exhausting. You may be exhausted by this struggle between social democracy and liberalism . When the fuck did I say this ? I said I was tired of the people who instantly run out of the room crying about how the democratic leadership is against progressives. Luckily that isn’t any of the progressive Reps that were elected, so it is mostly clowns on twitter who don't understand that politics is the forever fight. Don’t try to rope me into these debates about capital “P” Politics when I am talking about the nitty gritty of effecting political change within a party.
see it didnt even take a page for you to flip from “anyone trying to pick the most electable candidate by considering race and gender is actually just sexist and racist” to “anyone who refuses to vote for a democrat that isnt progressive enough doesnt understand how our elections work or how political change happens”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
