|
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 April 08 2019 11:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 10:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Curious from a British perspective, obviously our legislature is tied in to the executive, and the current situation over here is an atypical clusterfuck.
I used to think we one-upped you guys with Trump after Brexit, but not I'm not so sure. You had all the same accusations of racism and Islamophobia and "not knowing what you voted for/voted against self interest." Our political system would involve many filibusters, and internal dissent, but yours would be a typical union of ruling coalition + aligned PM. But now it appears yours is a bit wilder, and in ways I originally heard would be a design improvement over American politics. Regular old, "You voted wrong, go back and try again" with dithering on never putting details to the vote and the mechanism for rejecting the plebiscite. The last couple months of your UK proceedings on BBC and radio feel more like American politics. I could be remembering wrong but I don't recall people saying you should learn from the British how to improve the US political system when that topic was addressed in this thread.
Both suffer from the same problems, effectively a 2 party system that has no build in solution to a gridlock.
|
On April 08 2019 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 11:50 Danglars wrote:On April 08 2019 10:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Curious from a British perspective, obviously our legislature is tied in to the executive, and the current situation over here is an atypical clusterfuck.
I used to think we one-upped you guys with Trump after Brexit, but not I'm not so sure. You had all the same accusations of racism and Islamophobia and "not knowing what you voted for/voted against self interest." Our political system would involve many filibusters, and internal dissent, but yours would be a typical union of ruling coalition + aligned PM. But now it appears yours is a bit wilder, and in ways I originally heard would be a design improvement over American politics. Regular old, "You voted wrong, go back and try again" with dithering on never putting details to the vote and the mechanism for rejecting the plebiscite. The last couple months of your UK proceedings on BBC and radio feel more like American politics. I could be remembering wrong but I don't recall people saying you should learn from the British how to improve the US political system when that topic was addressed in this thread. Both suffer from the same problems, effectively a 2 party system that has no build in solution to a gridlock.
Our system overall does have some elements that would improve the American system (PMQs in particular; the distance between the US government and the people and the opacity of proceedings is the worst), but right now our system is having some sort of brain aneurysm.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
On April 08 2019 11:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 10:03 Wombat_NI wrote:
Curious from a British perspective, obviously our legislature is tied in to the executive, and the current situation over here is an atypical clusterfuck.
I used to think we one-upped you guys with Trump after Brexit, but not I'm not so sure. You had all the same accusations of racism and Islamophobia and "not knowing what you voted for/voted against self interest." Our political system would involve many filibusters, and internal dissent, but yours would be a typical union of ruling coalition + aligned PM. But now it appears yours is a bit wilder, and in ways I originally heard would be a design improvement over American politics. Regular old, "You voted wrong, go back and try again" with dithering on never putting details to the vote and the mechanism for rejecting the plebiscite. The last couple months of your UK proceedings on BBC and radio feel more like American politics.
We did vote wrong and many people didn’t really know what they were voting for in a practical sense :p Both campaigns spouted persistent pie in the sky nonsense over an issue that has a lot of complexities. If the campaign had been stretched out a little more and the media covered the actual issues better folks like me would have been placated regardless of how a hypothetical alternate world vote went. Of course many would still be rejecting the vote regardless.
Remain really like to pretend it wasn’t their side either, it was both. Some of our biggest banks (I’m a big fan of those folks...) said they’d move some operations if we left the EU for example, back-tracked literally the day after the vote and said nah we’re not going to do that.
It’s just a mess all round really. I think May should have just resigned and said fuck it, fair play to her to stick around despite being terrible at negotiating things, she’s someone I’m no fan of but she was dropped into it by Cameron and the pro- resit folks in her party who supposedly want the thing aren’t exactly helping, I’d have buggered off and left them to it.
The mudslinging isn’t always enjoyable and I’m not a fan, but specifically where it comes to MPs criticising or voting against their own party whip and whatnot.
Doesn’t seem all that common nowadays in the States, I don’t recall it being much of a pertinent factor, as it pertains to the President anyway.
Is this last decade or so that I’ve been following things atypical in the wider history of US politics or is this how it tends to be?
It seems the arithmetic and currently culture somewhat requires it as well. If the other side of the aisle will block most of what you try to do, even if it’s nothing they really disagree with, then you really have to close ranks and tow the party line right?
|
McGahn may be the only reason trump didnt get impeached. Obviously McGahn was able to convince him to back down, if only by threatening to resign.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
It’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the wash down the line when Trump no longer holds the office. Considering how much impulsive and stupid stuff Trump actually does say and do, I wonder what stuff he got convinced to climb down on.
I like McGahn’s line about the 180 degree turn, where one of 179 wouldn’t work. Does fit Trump’s MO pretty well.
|
The reporting out of DC is that Steven Miller will be taking over for Nielson when it comes to the border, which means we are one step closer to him being yanked before congress. And the situation at the border is going to get much worse.
|
On April 08 2019 21:59 Wombat_NI wrote:
It’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the wash down the line when Trump no longer holds the office.
Implying that will ever happen. He will win 2020 legitimately (or, not more illegitimately than GOP candidates usually do) and then hold on to the power of the office until he dies.
The Dems are repeating the mistakes of 2016 and they're doubling down on them .The people want a progressive, the DNC says they'll have to make do with Hillary's dog, Kamala Harris.
Sen. Warren, who is a great senator and would be a great POTUS, is a terrible candidate.
Bernie is way too old, and the DNC will never let a white man win the nomination.
MSNBCNN has already poisoned the well against Tulsi and Creepy Joe.
Quote me in 2020, not only will Trump win, but his re-election celebration will feature the military in some way.
|
The biggest mistake the democrats made in 2016 was running a candidate with a negative approval rating. That isn't going to happen this time around because Hilary isn't running.
Just remember, Trump's "massive win" in 2016 lost him the popular vote and Republicans seats in the House.
|
On April 08 2019 22:25 Plansix wrote:
The biggest mistake the democrats made in 2016 was running a candidate with a negative approval rating. That isn't going to happen this time around because Hilary isn't running.
Just remember, Trump's "massive win" in 2016 lost him the popular vote and Republicans seats in the House.
I mean they didn't exactly run one, she pretty much ran them and they fell in line. You know as well as anyone they would if they could but they can't stop Bernie at the moment.
|
On April 08 2019 22:25 Plansix wrote:
The biggest mistake the democrats made in 2016 was running a candidate with a negative approval rating. That isn't going to happen this time around because Hilary isn't running.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/kamala-harris-2020-california-1148153
In CA, which is a safe blue state, 40:38 isn't exactly great.
Nothing indicates to me that the DNC has learned from their mistakes in 2016.
Yes, Trump won by a narrow margin, but he can do a lot now to mobilize his base and get them to vote.
He now says he wants the Republicans to stand for health care (which is obviously bullshit), but his base needs their insulin and mobility scooters enough to believe him.
Plus, he can always start a war, if his approval rating dips.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
On April 08 2019 22:18 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 21:59 Wombat_NI wrote:
It’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the wash down the line when Trump no longer holds the office.
Implying that will ever happen. He will win 2020 legitimately (or, not more illegitimately than GOP candidates usually do) and then hold on to the power of the office until he dies. The Dems are repeating the mistakes of 2016 and they're doubling down on them .The people want a progressive, the DNC says they'll have to make do with Hillary's dog, Kamala Harris. Sen. Warren, who is a great senator and would be a great POTUS, is a terrible candidate. Bernie is way too old, and the DNC will never let a white man win the nomination. MSNBCNN has already poisoned the well against Tulsi and Creepy Joe. Quote me in 2020, not only will Trump win, but his re-election celebration will feature the military in some way.
Well I wasn’t so much implying it as saying it outright. I’m a young man I think I’ll live to see it.
Not so sure, it’s pretty early doors and it’s only really kicking into gear now.
I think the DNC would absolutely prefer someone who isn’t a white dude, if there’s an obvious groundswell behind one I don’t think they’ll necessarily go against him on those grounds. Bernie’s ‘problem’ as regards the DNC was his whole platform rather than him being a white dude.
It’s Trump they have to beat, they can stick up a flawed candidate and still have more than a shot, and that’s assuming he doesn’t do some really stupid stuff in the interim as well.
Progressive in what sense? It seems to be a term that can encompass social politics on identity, as well as more old-school economic leftism, either simultaneously but also one without the other. Clinton, amongst her many flaws trying to rebrand when anyone with a brain can see her record was stupid, made her seem even more insincere.
|
Northern Ireland23916 Posts
On April 08 2019 22:34 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 22:25 Plansix wrote:
The biggest mistake the democrats made in 2016 was running a candidate with a negative approval rating. That isn't going to happen this time around because Hilary isn't running. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/kamala-harris-2020-california-1148153In CA, which is a safe blue state, 40:38 isn't exactly great. Nothing indicates to me that the DNC has learned from their mistakes in 2016. Yes, Trump won by a narrow margin, but he can do a lot now to mobilize his base and get them to vote. He now says he wants the Republicans to stand for health care (which is obviously bullshit), but his base needs their insulin and mobility scooters enough to believe him. Plus, he can always start a war, if his approval rating dips.
True, although being a really safe blue state you’re probably going to have considerably more people potentially feeling Harris isn’t left enough which wouldn’t necessarily be a consideration in a lot of the rest of the country.
Plus we’re in the realm of hypotheticals and favoured candidates vs the actual realities of sucking it up and voting.
I’m not optimistic about Trump’s chances myself, well I’m optimistic that he’ll lose. Trump the candidate said the odd thing I agreed with, what little of that there was he’s actively flipped on in the interim.
He might be running against a weak candidate, certainly possible. He probably won’t be running against an actively disliked candidate like Clinton.
Turnout was lower last time. Lack of enthusiasm was one thing, I imagine some of the more disenfranchised Bernie Bros, annoyed at the DNC’s shenanigans didn’t vote, or didn’t vote for Clinton. Well I know such people existed having talked to them but, no idea what kind of numbers that equals
When basically every news org and polls said Trump wouldn’t win, it makes it an easier decision to either not vote, or vote according to principle and not anti-Trump pragmatism.
Well, he did of course win, so whatever number of people were complacent or didn’t think it was a possibility, will factor that into their thinking next time around.
|
On April 08 2019 22:39 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 22:18 byte-Curious wrote:On April 08 2019 21:59 Wombat_NI wrote:
It’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the wash down the line when Trump no longer holds the office.
Implying that will ever happen. He will win 2020 legitimately (or, not more illegitimately than GOP candidates usually do) and then hold on to the power of the office until he dies. The Dems are repeating the mistakes of 2016 and they're doubling down on them .The people want a progressive, the DNC says they'll have to make do with Hillary's dog, Kamala Harris. Sen. Warren, who is a great senator and would be a great POTUS, is a terrible candidate. Bernie is way too old, and the DNC will never let a white man win the nomination. MSNBCNN has already poisoned the well against Tulsi and Creepy Joe. Quote me in 2020, not only will Trump win, but his re-election celebration will feature the military in some way. Progressive in what sense?
Think Sen. Warren pre Pocahontas. Strong on consumer protection, progressive taxation, financial regulation, environmental protection. Bernie has held similar positions for fifty years or so.
If you take it a bit further, you'll get to Andrew Yang, who supports UBI and worker owned enterprise. Who also doesn't think it's a good idea to diminish anyone's economic suffering because they're white men, think truckers.
Unfortunately, the 'don't be racist towards whites' stance means the SJW wing of the democrats won't give him a fair shake, though.
That's what progressivism should be about, making sure Americans get a return on the tax dollars they invested into new technologies, and checking destructive corporate greed.
The thing is, most people want what Bernie and Warren want to give them, but a fair portion of them is alienated by left wing identity politics. Which is ironic, because right wing identity politics suited them just fine for decades.
On April 08 2019 22:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
Turnout was lower last time. Lack of enthusiasm was one thing, I imagine some of the more disenfranchised Bernie Bros, annoyed at the DNC’s shenanigans didn’t vote, or didn’t vote for Clinton. Well I know such people existed having talked to them but, no idea what kind of numbers that equals
Also, let's not forget Russian interference. The Internet Research Agency actively targeted black voters to sow division (like supporting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter at the same time) and suggest to them that Democrats don't care about them.
Collusion or not, the IRA had tens of millions of interactions with potential voters, which was a huge deal in an election that was decided on like 70k votes in key states.
|
On April 08 2019 22:34 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 22:25 Plansix wrote:
The biggest mistake the democrats made in 2016 was running a candidate with a negative approval rating. That isn't going to happen this time around because Hilary isn't running. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/06/kamala-harris-2020-california-1148153In CA, which is a safe blue state, 40:38 isn't exactly great. Nothing indicates to me that the DNC has learned from their mistakes in 2016. Yes, Trump won by a narrow margin, but he can do a lot now to mobilize his base and get them to vote. He now says he wants the Republicans to stand for health care (which is obviously bullshit), but his base needs their insulin and mobility scooters enough to believe him. Plus, he can always start a war, if his approval rating dips.
Harris’s national approval rating isn’t negative and there are like 10+ candidates. It is also very early.
Trumps approval rating has been at 40% for a while, sometimes dipping to 37%. He hasn’t cared about it to date and shows no signs of doing so in the future. He is going to do what he did in 2018. Double down on immigration fear mongering and likely take it in the teeth again.
Edit: I don’t know how well Warren will do through the primaries, but her razor focus on working class people and a strong dislike of banks should give all Republicans pause. Especially after the tax cuts they just handed out.
|
On April 08 2019 23:00 byte-Curious wrote:
Also, let's not forget Russian interference. The Internet Research Agency actively targeted black voters to sow division (like supporting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter at the same time) and suggest to them that Democrats don't care about them.
Collusion or not, the IRA had tens of millions of interactions with potential voters, which was a huge deal in an election that was decided on like 70k votes in key states.
No Black person learned that from Russia.
Those impressions are also very overblown. A single tweet of a cat video can easily get 10's of millions of impressions.
|
Alright, good to know you're confident in Trump losing. Those predictions were never wrong before, right?
Just wait until he nukes some country for some imagined insult and see his approval rating skyrocket well into the sixties. Strongmen are ultra popular in war times, and I'm using both the words "strong" and "man" very loosely.
The guy was born with a silver spoon in his fat face and convinced poor people he's one of them who 'made it out'.
The guy can't do a push-up and his fans think he's an athlete.
The guy fucks pornstars and evangelicals love him.
The guy is a draft dodger and soldiers think he's some sort of golden god.
I won't put it past him to con his way into a second term, and I'm confident that if he gets it, he never leaves again.
I'm also confident that if he doesn't get it, he's going to poison the well against his successor and claim the election was rigged, while his enabler gleefully count their Exxon money and watch democracy end in a bang.
|
On April 08 2019 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 23:00 byte-Curious wrote:
Also, let's not forget Russian interference. The Internet Research Agency actively targeted black voters to sow division (like supporting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter at the same time) and suggest to them that Democrats don't care about them.
Collusion or not, the IRA had tens of millions of interactions with potential voters, which was a huge deal in an election that was decided on like 70k votes in key states. No Black person learned that from Russia.
Renee DiResta et al would beg to differ. Their whitepaper on the IRA is worth a read:
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4326998/ira-report-rebrand_FinalJ14.pdf
Sure, if American media hadn't pushed the victim narrative to black Americans for a decade or so, like telling them they're likely to get mowed down by police, Russian propaganda wouldn't have fallen onto such fertile grounds.
Just look at their summary of the groups that were targeted. Russia knows how corrosive to a society identity politics are, and they capitalised on it to great effect:
+ Show Spoiler +y
Black culture, community, Black Lives
Matter
y
Blue Lives Matter, pro-police
y
Anti-refugee, pro-immigration reform
y
Texas culture, community, and pride
y
Southern culture (Confederate history)
y
Separatist movements and secession
y
Muslim culture, community, and pride
y
Christian culture, community, and pride
y
LGBT culture, community, and pride
y
Native American culture, community,
and pride
y
Meme and “red pill” culture
y
Patriotism and Tea Party culture
y
Liberal and feminist culture
y
Veteran’s Issues
y
Gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment
y
Political Pro-Trump, anti-Clinton
content
y
Pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein
content
y
Syria and ISIS, pro-Assad, anti-U.S.
involvement
y
Trust in media
|
On April 08 2019 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 23:00 byte-Curious wrote:
Also, let's not forget Russian interference. The Internet Research Agency actively targeted black voters to sow division (like supporting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter at the same time) and suggest to them that Democrats don't care about them.
Collusion or not, the IRA had tens of millions of interactions with potential voters, which was a huge deal in an election that was decided on like 70k votes in key states. No Black person learned that from Russia. Those impressions are also very overblown. A single tweet of a cat video can easily get 10's of millions of impressions.
Basically this. Internet companies would like you to think views equal real percent changing their mind, because they’re marketing that to you. No evidence exists of changed votes because somebody on the internet told you that the pope endorsed Trump or BLM said something nasty about Clinton. That’s just Clinton spin from late 2016/early 2017, warmed up to serve again now.
|
On April 08 2019 23:24 byte-Curious wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2019 23:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2019 23:00 byte-Curious wrote:
Also, let's not forget Russian interference. The Internet Research Agency actively targeted black voters to sow division (like supporting Black Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter at the same time) and suggest to them that Democrats don't care about them.
Collusion or not, the IRA had tens of millions of interactions with potential voters, which was a huge deal in an election that was decided on like 70k votes in key states. No Black person learned that from Russia. Renee DiResta et al would beg to differ. Their whitepaper on the IRA is worth a read: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/4326998/ira-report-rebrand_FinalJ14.pdfSure, if American media hadn't pushed the victim narrative to black Americans for a decade or so, like telling them they're likely to get mowed down by police, Russian propaganda wouldn't have fallen onto such fertile grounds. Just look at their summary of the groups that were targeted. Russia knows how corrosive to a society identity politics are, and they capitalised on it to great effect: + Show Spoiler +y
Black culture, community, Black Lives
Matter
y
Blue Lives Matter, pro-police
y
Anti-refugee, pro-immigration reform
y
Texas culture, community, and pride
y
Southern culture (Confederate history)
y
Separatist movements and secession
y
Muslim culture, community, and pride
y
Christian culture, community, and pride
y
LGBT culture, community, and pride
y
Native American culture, community,
and pride
y
Meme and “red pill” culture
y
Patriotism and Tea Party culture
y
Liberal and feminist culture
y
Veteran’s Issues
y
Gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment
y
Political Pro-Trump, anti-Clinton
content
y
Pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein
content
y
Syria and ISIS, pro-Assad, anti-U.S.
involvement
y
Trust in media
Well there's two separate issues wrapped up in there.
Racist policing which is a fact. Then there's the idea that Russia/Media tricked/manipulated Black people into thinking they were being oppressed, which is an unsubstantiated myth.
I'm not even going to touch all the other stuff. My point is just to dispel the idea that Russia/media somehow duped Black people into believing their oppression is worse than it is.
|
Lets be fair here, it does seem to a fair victim narrative, russian propaganda or not withstanding. That russian propogandists happen to push that narrative does not make it any less real. From your same link:
The IRA had a roster of themes, primarily social issues, that they repeatedly emphasized and reinforced across their Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube content.
Black culture, community, Black Lives Matter
Blue Lives Matter, pro-police
Anti-refugee, pro-immigration reform
Texas culture, community, and pride
Southern culture (Confederate history)
Separatist movements and secession
Muslim culture, community, and pride
Christian culture, community, and pride
LGBT culture, community, and pride
Native American culture, community,and pride
Meme and “red pill” culture
Patriotism and Tea Party culture
Liberal and feminist culture
Veteran’s Issues
Gun rights, pro-2nd Amendment
Political Pro-Trump, anti-Clinton content
Pro-Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein content
Syria and ISIS, pro-Assad, anti-U.S. involvement
Trust in media
Are all of those false narratives also?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
