|
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 June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest.
Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party.
Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing?
|
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems.
Why there even be a problem if the democrat part does not nominate a straight, white male to be president?
Heck, what's wrong with socialism? Even the poorer European countries have more of their population living more comfortably than Americans do, never mind the richer ones.
Seeing as that you have written that USA should be a white ethnostate, why would identity politics be seen as a problem? Not the right kind of identity politics?
These false tears for the Democratic party, it sounds rather strange coming from your mouth as if you think we never seen you post here before.
|
On June 04 2019 05:29 Dan HH wrote:
That having more than 2 political ideas is considered a problem in a nation of 300 million is beyond absurd.
It's not about having more than 2 ideas, but how our political system is structured that will ONLY allow for 2 parties to exist.
In a solidified 2 party system, if a third party gains momentum it will detract votes from one of the 2 major parties (which ever one it most resembles) and force that party to lose.
Because votes in America are "all or nothing" any third party vote is basically a waste, it won't count for anything but pulling a vote from another party.
Until America adopts a system like rank choice voting we will only have 2 parties. Rank choice voting in which you are allow a 2nd 3rd 4th pick, would allow someone to truly vote for their most desired pick first without fear of hurting the party chances.
|
On June 04 2019 07:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:
The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Why there even be a problem if the democrat part does not nominate a straight, white male to be president? Heck, what's wrong with socialism? Even the poorer European countries have more of their population living more comfortably than Americans do, never mind the richer ones. Seeing as that you have written that USA should be a white ethnostate, why would identity politics be seen as a problem? Not the right kind of identity politics? These false tears for the Democratic party, it sounds rather strange coming from your mouth as if you think we never seen you post here before.
Imagine a comic book vilain. Apply him to a commentator of american politics. There you go, it's xDaunt. Seriuosly, there is no point in engaging with this pure evil, all you gain from engaging with it does is tainting yourself.
|
On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves.
Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd.
|
Pete Butitigieg so far has told me that white male privelidge trumps being gay. Juding by some comments from the "nice" left.
|
On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing?
I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat.
But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case.
The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now.
|
Forgive my double post but I wanted to FYI for everyone else who has been too afraid to ask:
Pansexual is apparently different from bisexual. A pansexual is someone who is basically just attracted to humans and doesn't mind if you are male, female, or something else entirely. It is intended to be a more inclusive version of bisexual. So I guess some people thought bisexual was not inclusive enough, so they made up a new term that explicitly acknowledges the existence of more than 2 genders. Not to say they want to bang anything that moves, but they are people who wouldn't be against male-->female trans or female-->male trans.
Finally decided to google it after passively wondering "wait, isn't that just bisexual" but never caring enough to check.
|
On June 04 2019 07:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 05:29 Dan HH wrote:
That having more than 2 political ideas is considered a problem in a nation of 300 million is beyond absurd. It's not about having more than 2 ideas, but how our political system is structured that will ONLY allow for 2 parties to exist. In a solidified 2 party system, if a third party gains momentum it will detract votes from one of the 2 major parties (which ever one it most resembles) and force that party to lose. Because votes in America are "all or nothing" any third party vote is basically a waste, it won't count for anything but pulling a vote from another party. Until America adopts a system like rank choice voting we will only have 2 parties. Rank choice voting in which you are allow a 2nd 3rd 4th pick, would allow someone to truly vote for their most desired pick first without fear of hurting the party chances.
Thats not the problem with the way elections are that bring a two party system and you know it.
|
On June 04 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:[quote] It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing? I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat. But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case. The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now. xDaunt nor myself are talking about voters switching sides. We're talking about rifts in parties and the claim that the Democrats have a bigger rift then Republicans.
|
On June 04 2019 08:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:
[quote]
I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers.
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing? I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat. But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case. The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now. xDaunt nor myself are talking about voters switching sides. We're talking about rifts in parties and the claim that the Democrats have a bigger rift then Republicans.
Beyond actually going so far as to not vote or vote for the other side, what is a "rift"? The idea of infighting remains completely irrelevant until the point of diminishing activity within a party. In my eyes, neither side even has a rift. Just people who get salty about sharing a tent with half the country.
|
On June 04 2019 08:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party.
Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing? I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat. But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case. The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now. xDaunt nor myself are talking about voters switching sides. We're talking about rifts in parties and the claim that the Democrats have a bigger rift then Republicans. Beyond actually going so far as to not vote or vote for the other side, what is a "rift"? The idea of infighting remains completely irrelevant until the point of diminishing activity within a party. I would call not accomplishing anything despite control of all 3 branches for 2 years because of a 'rift' pretty relevant.
|
On June 04 2019 08:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party.
Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing? I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat. But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case. The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now. xDaunt nor myself are talking about voters switching sides. We're talking about rifts in parties and the claim that the Democrats have a bigger rift then Republicans. Beyond actually going so far as to not vote or vote for the other side, what is a "rift"? The idea of infighting remains completely irrelevant until the point of diminishing activity within a party. In my eyes, neither side even has a rift. Just people who get salty about sharing a tent with half the country.
As a few posters have pointed out, the Republicans very obviously have a rift in the party, else they wouldn't have spent literal years trying to get legislation passed and mostly needed an entire election cycle to get rid of 'non-believers'.
|
On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd.
One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics.
|
On June 04 2019 08:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:34 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 08:21 Mohdoo wrote:On June 04 2019 06:37 Gorsameth wrote:On June 04 2019 04:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party.
Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems. Your claiming a bigger schism is the Democratic party, while the Republican party has failed to govern for 2 years with a majority in all branches of government because of the schism between the Freedom Caucus and the rest. Color me very sceptical of your attempts at painting your opposition worse then your own party. Do you perhaps have any proof of this massive schism beyond some politcal oh and ah'ing? I don't think this is any different than when Romney lost and everyone said republicans were in free fall. They weren't. Because a republican will still likely not ever vote for a democrat. But in a time where all elections are essentially a referendum on Trump, people need to remember the same is true of democrats. When you assume your side is the rational one, it is easy to imagine a lot of people would totally cross the aisle with a few small concessions. But that's simply not the case. The thing that people are missing is that even when you are disappointed in your party, that is SO far from voting for what is now being thought of as "the enemy". People are flocking to corners, not the center. The internet is like steroids for social development. Its just getting kinda weird lately and we're in a shitty spot right now. xDaunt nor myself are talking about voters switching sides. We're talking about rifts in parties and the claim that the Democrats have a bigger rift then Republicans. Beyond actually going so far as to not vote or vote for the other side, what is a "rift"? The idea of infighting remains completely irrelevant until the point of diminishing activity within a party. In my eyes, neither side even has a rift. Just people who get salty about sharing a tent with half the country. I would consider a rift to be an ideological divide in which prevents two or more groups that are theoretically on the "same side" from coming to agreement. The divide can be on policy itself or implementation of policy. During the two years where the Republicans controlled the executive branch, the house, and the senate, frequently we saw the Freedom Caucus disagree with establishment Republicans over policy implementation. The classic example between these two groups is the Freedom Caucus' rejection of Paul Ryan's bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, the American Health Care Act.
That rift still exists, but now there is also a slowly growing rift on the Democratic side between the establishment Democrats and the progressive Democrats. The progressive Democrats gained a great deal of political strength after the 2018 midterms, and it appears we may soon end up in a 2010 Republican/Tea Party-like situation, where the progressives manage to become a proper threat to the establishment Dems. This is because the progressives' policies are gaining favour among the Democratic base (especially among the younger demographics, which soon will be the largest voting group), and progressive wing has taken a Tea Party-esque position of being willing primary establishment Democrats who appear to be resting on their laurels. I could see the progressive Democrats eventually taking up a Freedom Caucus-like spot within the Democratic Party. Outside of a two party system they would probably be their own party, but because of how the two party system works, it is more beneficial for them to remain with the Democrats.
The primaries will certainly be interesting this time around.
|
I think it's worth looking at the premier liberal cable news networks hires/guests over the last few years to see the rift among Democrats. One that sticks out is the old party money man that AOC replaced, he's been on MSNBC a lot giving advice on winning...
Claire McCaskill got hired after she lost to give advice for what Democrats should do
Nicole Wallace (former Bush propagandist) got her own show
Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt got one (not sure if he kept it, but is a paid guest frequently).
As far as I can tell the rift between Democrats is mostly older Democrats whose views are more easily identifiable with the Republican party but they don't want to be identified as "Republicans"
|
|
|
On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics.
What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over.
|
On June 04 2019 13:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 09:13 xDaunt wrote:On June 04 2019 08:08 IgnE wrote:On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:[quote] It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves. Pete Buttigieg is a centrist technocrat. He’s young. He signed up for the military after 9/11 to fight evil. He’s a white male. But he’s also got a lot of identity cred with the younger crowd. One of the things that Buttigieg seems to be doing that many prominent democrats do is to go way left on certain social issues to compensate for some of his heresies on other issues. The two social issues that he is jumping up and down on are abortion rights and gay identity politics. What's "way left" on gay identity politics? The war was won. It's over.
I mean we're being inundated with it this (Pride) month because tech is disproportionately openly gay/pro-gay rights compared to a lot of industries (from what I gather) both because of the demographics and that the tech businesses don't think supporting gay rights is less profitable than opposing it. Granted there are still some holdouts and niche providers around.
I think there are quite a few relics of the past we're more likely to revisit than condoning and even celebrating violent homophobia as national policy.
|
On June 04 2019 08:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 07:25 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 04 2019 05:29 Dan HH wrote:
That having more than 2 political ideas is considered a problem in a nation of 300 million is beyond absurd. It's not about having more than 2 ideas, but how our political system is structured that will ONLY allow for 2 parties to exist. In a solidified 2 party system, if a third party gains momentum it will detract votes from one of the 2 major parties (which ever one it most resembles) and force that party to lose. Because votes in America are "all or nothing" any third party vote is basically a waste, it won't count for anything but pulling a vote from another party. Until America adopts a system like rank choice voting we will only have 2 parties. Rank choice voting in which you are allow a 2nd 3rd 4th pick, would allow someone to truly vote for their most desired pick first without fear of hurting the party chances. Thats not the problem with the way elections are that bring a two party system and you know it.
Two things in response.
1) https://www.grammarly.com/
2) Saying "that's wrong and you know it" isn't a counter argument, try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
