|
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 |
Pete's position as the leading moderate who's not an octogenarian gaffe-machine means he can expect a bump every time Biden does something stupid. The last debate certainly qualified, so it could be that.
I agree things will probably be different once he starts taking fire. It feels like he's gone under the radar on nearly every front so far.
Also, since I got the new page, this was dead on and deserves the header:
On November 28 2019 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The future will look back and see it as one of two ways. Either they will look back and see it as a time when in a fit of collective madness, elected a most despicable, corrupt president who lies and the rest of the populace and political machinery manages to fight back and rule of law is restored, or due to that the Republican party see nothing wrong with abusing state power for political power, it'll be seen as the birth of one party rule, a most glorious revolution that still control the country today.
This impeachment proceeding is a crossroad. The next election is a crossroad. 2020 will decide whether USA will slide towards autocracy or can retain democracy. There is no guarantee whatsoever that in 100 years Americans will look back and think Trump presidency was insane.
That Trump is a comical cartoon villian distracts from the serious threat to democracy that he is and distracts from why the impeachment is so important. The Democrats have no choice but to try to impeach Trump, to go out there and say that abusing the power of the state to be directed at political opponents is reprehensible, regardless of whether the population thinks supports impeachment or not, because if they don't even fight against such an obvious breach of political freedom that is one of the basis of democratic rights, they will be next.
The next election may be the most important America has ever had. It's deeply worrying that there's no dem candidate who seems any better than a toss-up in the general.
|
On November 28 2019 14:23 Belisarius wrote:Pete's position as the leading moderate who's not an octogenarian gaffe-machine means he can expect a bump every time Biden does something stupid. The last debate certainly qualified, so it could be that. I agree things will probably be different once he starts taking fire. It feels like he's gone under the radar on nearly every front so far. Also, since I got the new page, this was dead on and deserves the header: Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The future will look back and see it as one of two ways. Either they will look back and see it as a time when in a fit of collective madness, elected a most despicable, corrupt president who lies and the rest of the populace and political machinery manages to fight back and rule of law is restored, or due to that the Republican party see nothing wrong with abusing state power for political power, it'll be seen as the birth of one party rule, a most glorious revolution that still control the country today.
This impeachment proceeding is a crossroad. The next election is a crossroad. 2020 will decide whether USA will slide towards autocracy or can retain democracy. There is no guarantee whatsoever that in 100 years Americans will look back and think Trump presidency was insane.
That Trump is a comical cartoon villian distracts from the serious threat to democracy that he is and distracts from why the impeachment is so important. The Democrats have no choice but to try to impeach Trump, to go out there and say that abusing the power of the state to be directed at political opponents is reprehensible, regardless of whether the population thinks supports impeachment or not, because if they don't even fight against such an obvious breach of political freedom that is one of the basis of democratic rights, they will be next. The next election may be the most important America has ever had. It's deeply worrying that there's no dem candidate who seems any better than a toss-up in the general.
This is what happens when you're spoiled by the charismatic Obama years. He raised the bar too high. Everyone on the campaign trail now is trying to recapture that energy but it's nigh impossible. So we have these random assortments of candidates.
|
On November 28 2019 14:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 14:23 Belisarius wrote:Pete's position as the leading moderate who's not an octogenarian gaffe-machine means he can expect a bump every time Biden does something stupid. The last debate certainly qualified, so it could be that. I agree things will probably be different once he starts taking fire. It feels like he's gone under the radar on nearly every front so far. Also, since I got the new page, this was dead on and deserves the header: On November 28 2019 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The future will look back and see it as one of two ways. Either they will look back and see it as a time when in a fit of collective madness, elected a most despicable, corrupt president who lies and the rest of the populace and political machinery manages to fight back and rule of law is restored, or due to that the Republican party see nothing wrong with abusing state power for political power, it'll be seen as the birth of one party rule, a most glorious revolution that still control the country today.
This impeachment proceeding is a crossroad. The next election is a crossroad. 2020 will decide whether USA will slide towards autocracy or can retain democracy. There is no guarantee whatsoever that in 100 years Americans will look back and think Trump presidency was insane.
That Trump is a comical cartoon villian distracts from the serious threat to democracy that he is and distracts from why the impeachment is so important. The Democrats have no choice but to try to impeach Trump, to go out there and say that abusing the power of the state to be directed at political opponents is reprehensible, regardless of whether the population thinks supports impeachment or not, because if they don't even fight against such an obvious breach of political freedom that is one of the basis of democratic rights, they will be next. The next election may be the most important America has ever had. It's deeply worrying that there's no dem candidate who seems any better than a toss-up in the general. This is what happens when you're spoiled by the charismatic Obama years. He raised the bar too high. Everyone on the campaign trail now is trying to recapture that energy but it's nigh impossible. So we have these random assortments of candidates.
Obama was charismatic no doubt, but I have a hard time believing that there aren't other equally compelling candidates in this huge country of ours. Or perhaps we'd be more excited about the current candidates if Trump wasn't such a black hole that sucks up all people's energy and media coverage. I wonder if Obama even would be floundering right now if he were just trying to introduce himself to the national electorate.
|
Northern Ireland23789 Posts
On November 28 2019 16:35 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 14:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 28 2019 14:23 Belisarius wrote:Pete's position as the leading moderate who's not an octogenarian gaffe-machine means he can expect a bump every time Biden does something stupid. The last debate certainly qualified, so it could be that. I agree things will probably be different once he starts taking fire. It feels like he's gone under the radar on nearly every front so far. Also, since I got the new page, this was dead on and deserves the header: On November 28 2019 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The future will look back and see it as one of two ways. Either they will look back and see it as a time when in a fit of collective madness, elected a most despicable, corrupt president who lies and the rest of the populace and political machinery manages to fight back and rule of law is restored, or due to that the Republican party see nothing wrong with abusing state power for political power, it'll be seen as the birth of one party rule, a most glorious revolution that still control the country today.
This impeachment proceeding is a crossroad. The next election is a crossroad. 2020 will decide whether USA will slide towards autocracy or can retain democracy. There is no guarantee whatsoever that in 100 years Americans will look back and think Trump presidency was insane.
That Trump is a comical cartoon villian distracts from the serious threat to democracy that he is and distracts from why the impeachment is so important. The Democrats have no choice but to try to impeach Trump, to go out there and say that abusing the power of the state to be directed at political opponents is reprehensible, regardless of whether the population thinks supports impeachment or not, because if they don't even fight against such an obvious breach of political freedom that is one of the basis of democratic rights, they will be next. The next election may be the most important America has ever had. It's deeply worrying that there's no dem candidate who seems any better than a toss-up in the general. This is what happens when you're spoiled by the charismatic Obama years. He raised the bar too high. Everyone on the campaign trail now is trying to recapture that energy but it's nigh impossible. So we have these random assortments of candidates. Obama was charismatic no doubt, but I have a hard time believing that there aren't other equally compelling candidates in this huge country of ours. Or perhaps we'd be more excited about the current candidates if Trump wasn't such a black hole that sucks up all people's energy and media coverage. I wonder if Obama even would be floundering right now if he were just trying to introduce himself to the national electorate.
Yeah interesting to consider now if Obama could have surged from relative obscurity to front runner in today’s climate and field.
Aside from some of his personal qualities, I recall there being a fair bit of enthusiasm (especially in irrelevant abroad places) for him being quite statesmanlike. A man to rebuild America’s reputation after the Bush era.
That we have by a distance the least statesmanlike President of modern times in the Oval Office would rather benefit a hypothetical new candidate Obama today I think.
Would depend on exposure and the field. It was a different media era in Obama’s first run to now, he surged pretty hard on a few good speeches in a way I don’t see happening today, where there’s more overall coverage but it’s spread out all over the place.
|
On November 28 2019 16:35 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 14:54 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On November 28 2019 14:23 Belisarius wrote:Pete's position as the leading moderate who's not an octogenarian gaffe-machine means he can expect a bump every time Biden does something stupid. The last debate certainly qualified, so it could be that. I agree things will probably be different once he starts taking fire. It feels like he's gone under the radar on nearly every front so far. Also, since I got the new page, this was dead on and deserves the header: On November 28 2019 00:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
The future will look back and see it as one of two ways. Either they will look back and see it as a time when in a fit of collective madness, elected a most despicable, corrupt president who lies and the rest of the populace and political machinery manages to fight back and rule of law is restored, or due to that the Republican party see nothing wrong with abusing state power for political power, it'll be seen as the birth of one party rule, a most glorious revolution that still control the country today.
This impeachment proceeding is a crossroad. The next election is a crossroad. 2020 will decide whether USA will slide towards autocracy or can retain democracy. There is no guarantee whatsoever that in 100 years Americans will look back and think Trump presidency was insane.
That Trump is a comical cartoon villian distracts from the serious threat to democracy that he is and distracts from why the impeachment is so important. The Democrats have no choice but to try to impeach Trump, to go out there and say that abusing the power of the state to be directed at political opponents is reprehensible, regardless of whether the population thinks supports impeachment or not, because if they don't even fight against such an obvious breach of political freedom that is one of the basis of democratic rights, they will be next. The next election may be the most important America has ever had. It's deeply worrying that there's no dem candidate who seems any better than a toss-up in the general. This is what happens when you're spoiled by the charismatic Obama years. He raised the bar too high. Everyone on the campaign trail now is trying to recapture that energy but it's nigh impossible. So we have these random assortments of candidates. Obama was charismatic no doubt, but I have a hard time believing that there aren't other equally compelling candidates in this huge country of ours. Or perhaps we'd be more excited about the current candidates if Trump wasn't such a black hole that sucks up all people's energy and media coverage. I wonder if Obama even would be floundering right now if he were just trying to introduce himself to the national electorate. If I had to take a guess at why there appears to be no 'new Obama' its because of $$. How many people can even get the funds together to start making an impact in the elections?
With the diversity of the field and already progressive candidates like Bernie taking a lot of the smaller donations from voters I can see there simply not being room for someone out of left field to pop in.
|
The field is usually weaker against a sitting president. America does historically give its leaders two terms so it's not surprising that serious contenders will manoeuvre for the end-of-tenure election rather than ruin their standing by running facefirst into an incumbent. However, the rules are totally different this time around. If there is an Obama 2.0 out there biding his time, he is making a critical error in assuming there will even be a fair election to stand for in 4 more years.
It just feels like the whole field is trying to point at the shadow of Trump's towering coiffe and use it to achieve some adjacent goal. You have Biden/Buttigieg scrambling to paint over their otherwise unelectable blandness, and on the other hand Bernie/Warren trying to ram through a radically unpalatable agenda and hope people will accept it because the alternative is Trump. Those stances just seem so dangerous when the price of failure is the probable collapse of US democracy itself.
To me, the entire country should be laser focused on getting him out by any means possible, and every candidate should be willing to rally behind whoever is most likely to win in the general. Nothing else matters.
|
It is important not to make your camp look laser focused on getting its enemy out by any means possible because that makes it very easy for your enemy to paint your camp as interested only in regaining power and not in implementing any meaningful reforms. You should notice it by now, I mean things like attempting to discredit criticism by calling it "Trump derangement syndrome" or saying they're building the wall while the other side would continue to "do nothing" about immigration.
This is adressed mainly to the liberal camp. It's harder to attack progressives like this because they're way more vocal about the big changes they want to make.
|
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies.
|
On November 28 2019 20:35 Belisarius wrote:
The field is usually weaker against a sitting president. America does historically give its leaders two terms so it's not surprising that serious contenders will manoeuvre for the end-of-tenure election rather than ruin their standing by running facefirst into an incumbent. However, the rules are totally different this time around. If there is an Obama 2.0 out there biding his time, he is making a critical error in assuming there will even be a fair election to stand for in 4 more years.
It just feels like the whole field is trying to point at the shadow of Trump's towering coiffe and use it to achieve some adjacent goal. You have Biden/Buttigieg scrambling to paint over their otherwise unelectable blandness, and on the other hand Bernie/Warren trying to ram through a radically unpalatable agenda and hope people will accept it because the alternative is Trump. Those stances just seem so dangerous when the price of failure is the probable collapse of US democracy itself.
To me, the entire country should be laser focused on getting him out by any means possible, and every candidate should be willing to rally behind whoever is most likely to win in the general. Nothing else matters.
I don't think it's possible to know who this person is, at this point in time. There have been plenty of head-to-head polls that show various popular Democratic candidates polling reasonably well against Trump, but no one is a knock out (and there's still almost a year left for things to change anyway).
Personally, I don't mind a scrappy, multi-side Democratic primary, as long as everyone kisses and makes up after a primary winner is declared. After we have an official Democratic nominee, I'd want everyone in the "losing" primary factions to stand solidly behind the primary winner. We can't even get that part right though, so there's no way the Democrats would be monolithic throughout the general and primary.
|
On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies.
No idea where this take came from. Most Democratic policies are quite popular with the electorate.
|
On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies.
I think that some of the moderate liberal candidates, like Biden and Buttigieg, have benefited from just dialing back the "extreme progressivism" on the policy positions that progressive candidates, like Sanders and Warren, have proposed. For example, Sanders and Warren want true M4A, and then Biden and Buttigieg retaliate with "Whoa that would cost too much and people need to choose whatever they want," which completely misrepresents both of those situations (cost and freedom) but it resonates with most voters who haven't looked into the situation. It's the kind of rhetoric that makes it sound like the moderate liberals are coming up with their own new positions, instead of just straddling between the status quo and true progress.
On November 28 2019 22:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. No idea where this take came from. Most Democratic policies are quite popular with the electorate.
My guess is that he's semantically differentiating between moderate no-real-change positions and actual progressivism, although it would be useful to know which policies he thinks are unpopular. Even the moderates want to legalize/ decriminalize marijuna, do something about guns, support women's rights, seriously address climate change, etc., all of which have amazing support.
|
On November 28 2019 23:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. I think that some of the moderate liberal candidates, like Biden and Buttigieg, have benefited from just dialing back the "extreme progressivism" on the policy positions that progressive candidates, like Sanders and Warren, have proposed. For example, Sanders and Warren want true M4A, and then Biden and Buttigieg retaliate with "Whoa that would cost too much and people need to choose whatever they want," which completely misrepresents both of those situations (cost and freedom) but it resonates with most voters who haven't looked into the situation. It's the kind of rhetoric that makes it sound like the moderate liberals are coming up with their own new positions, instead of just straddling between the status quo and true progress. Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 22:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. No idea where this take came from. Most Democratic policies are quite popular with the electorate. My guess is that he's semantically differentiating between moderate no-real-change positions and actual progressivism, although it would be useful to know which policies he thinks are unpopular. Even the moderates want to legalize/ decriminalize marijuna, do something about guns, support women's rights, seriously address climate change, etc., all of which have amazing support.
Progressive policies are also super popular once you strip them of the "socialism" fear mongering.
|
On November 28 2019 23:08 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 23:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. I think that some of the moderate liberal candidates, like Biden and Buttigieg, have benefited from just dialing back the "extreme progressivism" on the policy positions that progressive candidates, like Sanders and Warren, have proposed. For example, Sanders and Warren want true M4A, and then Biden and Buttigieg retaliate with "Whoa that would cost too much and people need to choose whatever they want," which completely misrepresents both of those situations (cost and freedom) but it resonates with most voters who haven't looked into the situation. It's the kind of rhetoric that makes it sound like the moderate liberals are coming up with their own new positions, instead of just straddling between the status quo and true progress. On November 28 2019 22:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. No idea where this take came from. Most Democratic policies are quite popular with the electorate. My guess is that he's semantically differentiating between moderate no-real-change positions and actual progressivism, although it would be useful to know which policies he thinks are unpopular. Even the moderates want to legalize/ decriminalize marijuna, do something about guns, support women's rights, seriously address climate change, etc., all of which have amazing support. Progressive policies are also super popular once you strip them of the "socialism" fear mongering.
Sadly, doing exactly that (removing or correcting a buzzword that's been used as an attack term) is incredibly hard to do. Soundbites, buzzwords, and catchphrases go a loooooong way in elections. Trump literally won on just those things (Build A Wall! Lock Her Up! Crooked Hillary!).
|
Norway28556 Posts
also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
|
On November 28 2019 10:52 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 09:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 26 2019 22:59 Gorgonoth wrote:
Morning Consult poll taken after the debate has Biden at 30, Sanders at 21, Warren at 15, and Buttigeg at 9. Morning Consult has had Biden at 32 for months now, so a slight dip for him, but I think the most notable change is Warren's steady slide every week now since late October when she was at 20%. Of course we need 2-5 more polls post debate to get a feel for its actual effect, but I think we could be seeing a Sanders v Biden as the front-runners as Warren loses support. Buttigeg winning Iowa and NH is of course still in play, which hurts Sanders who did very well in these states over Clinton.
Morning Consult has a massive sample size, regularly their polls surpass 15,000. For comparison Emerson, Ipsos, Yougov, and Monmouth rarely crack a thousand. Its certainly good to see changing trends among a much more significant test group. More information on that poll is found here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/ And an absolutely absurd aberration from Quinnipiac just showed up as well on that same site, with Buttigieg not only getting double-digits, but somehow doubling his normal support rate and surpassing both Sanders and Warren, which makes no sense. That poll says: "Biden 24, Sanders 13, Warren 14, Buttigieg 16", but that can't possibly be true o.O Up until now, Buttigieg has been solidly at 4-10% over the past month, being pretty much alone in a second tier (as Harris falls down into the low tier, where everyone else is), significantly below the Big Three. Thoughts on this pro-Pete poll? I think the Pete surge is for real. We've seen a number of polls to show that confirm that he is indeed trending upwards nationally, and doing very well in Iowa+ NH. The RCP average has him up 5.7 in Iowa and 3 in NH. (RCP doesn't have a couple polls which buttress the Quinnipac Pete national polling boost, Two CNN polls and YouGov have him at 11,12 and 17 nationally) New Hampshire is looking ridiculously close, not that Iowa couldn't change in a week either. It's still very much in play for four candidates. It seems like when ever any candidate starts trending upward, they get an increased round of scrutiny, (see Kamala and Warren.) Buttigeg really didn't get challenged too much this debate which surprised me, I expect the December debate to be an attempted kneecapping of Pete.
I agree, and I don't think Buttigieg has really been challenged in any of the debates. He's done a very good job of speaking well; coming off as a middle-of-the-road candidate; flying under the radar as Biden, Sanders, and Warren are the main focuses; and occasionally picking up a few points here and there... especially as Biden shoots himself in the foot over and over again. Plus, some liberal headlines could absolutely turn on anyone "arrogant" enough to "attack" a ***gay veteran***, so he has a little bit of plot armor in this Democratic primary too.
|
On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT.
Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
|
On November 28 2019 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 23:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
also, I have the impression that some are only popular if you disassociate them from the tax increase necessary to fund them.
Like, taxing the fuck out of billionaires so they stop being billionaires is an independent goal for me. But that's not how you fund education or universal health care or the other attractive elements of a scandinavian social democratic society, that's done through higher income taxes across the board, or stuff like VAT. Sanders and Warren have tried to explain that the net cost of these things would go down for the average American, because an increase in taxes would be offset by the lack of premiums and other healthcare-related fees that we currently have to pay. Sadly, many Americans stop listening when they hear "taxes would go up" and don't wait 10 more seconds to hear "but overall you'll pay less, and that's what matters financially".
I'm just curious what role you see liberal media outlets playing in that?
|
On November 27 2019 00:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2019 22:48 ETisME wrote:On November 26 2019 00:34 JimmiC wrote:Thank you for posting, this confirms all the whispers that have been sneaking out of China for years about these. With China's extreme controls on the media and internet it is not surprising that it took this long for confirmation. I hope more of these leaks come out, there is a lot of horrible, horrible human rights abuses going on that need to be taken out into the open in the hopes that international pressure can be placed in hopes of some changes, though I'm not sure it will work. Those in power are so wealthy and so committed to control I'm not any amount of pressure will matter. It also really puts into perspective why the people of Hong Kong are so scared and willing to fight for their freedom so hard. They don't want to be put in "reeducation" camps and I'm sure stamping out their freedom and bending them to Chinese will will be a top priority at some point. One of the scariest aspect of China is that it cannot distinguish from the reality and the agenda it is pushing. We recently had a landslide victory for pro-democratic members in the district council votes. What's interesting is that China actually spend a lot of effort in pushing for this vote, they have stars making promotion MV, they have front page ads telling people to vote. Apparently the oversea branch of their state newspaper had submitted an article for pro-Beijing camp victory. They truly believed in a lie that they created, a silent majority who just are against the protesters, who will vote and win big to isolate the protesters and give the police the moral support they lacked. What I personally am most afraid of, isn't Hong Kong but that this issue, with the potential spread of social credit system will create a truly dystopian future across the globe, as China spread its influence. A future where humans are born in a system that creates agenda and mold people to it. This is why we are seeking help from the US. We understand they aren't doing it for justice/freedom whatever, we know they are kinda a war driven regime, but this is serious. We have a quite a strong Anti-CCP segment in Hong Kong, and that is why we are very vocal and always keeping an eye. But the rest of the world? I think you will all fall until it's kinda too late, not just because it's far across the ocean, but also because CCP is the best at infiltration and create agenda Thank you for the insight, it is always good to hear from the people actually living it. Right now since China smacked us economically after we arrested the Huawei executive there is a fair bit of talk about how to handle them in the future. And sadly I think more are concerned about China hurting us economically then us trying to pressure them on their human rights violations. The main excuse is we are just small and other countries are not doing it, and I think that there is the same thought with most other countries. TLDR- I think you could be right but I hope you are not! edit: some context on Canadian Chinese relations. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/leak-of-china-documents-raises-questions-about-imprisoned-canadian-huseyin-celil/ar-BBXkby4?li=AAggNb9
And the Hong Kong bill is signed by Trump! What a day.
Though I suspected he only signed because he knows the bill could just get another majority win and thus not even needing his signature.
Canada has always been relatively quiet in terms of world politics but the Huawei executive arrest really changed it up.
Maybe you aren't aware but there was a Pro-Hong Kong march planned in Toronto and the chinese immigrants actually took videos of guns and bullets within their Toronto wechat chat group (it's like whatsapp, but China), this led to the march to be canceled.
Same happened in New York as well, again with photos of guns and bullets in their private wechat chat group, but they decided not to cancel the march and there was confrontation and fortunately there's no shooting.
There were even Chinese in Catalonia bullying the locals for supporting the HK protest.
But I think you are right, other countries need the US to take a stance first before they get on.
We are hoping Japan to do the same for Asia.
The CCP is an expert in infiltration, that's how they took over the regime.
Even Chinese immigrants are just part of its weapon. I really hope this time the world will be more watchful whenever CCP is involved and be very wary.
|
On November 28 2019 23:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. I think that some of the moderate liberal candidates, like Biden and Buttigieg, have benefited from just dialing back the "extreme progressivism" on the policy positions that progressive candidates, like Sanders and Warren, have proposed. For example, Sanders and Warren want true M4A, and then Biden and Buttigieg retaliate with "Whoa that would cost too much and people need to choose whatever they want," which completely misrepresents both of those situations (cost and freedom) but it resonates with most voters who haven't looked into the situation. It's the kind of rhetoric that makes it sound like the moderate liberals are coming up with their own new positions, instead of just straddling between the status quo and true progress. Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 22:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 28 2019 22:38 Nebuchad wrote:
The best strategy for liberals right now is most likely to just go after Trump. Liberalism is very unpopular right now, they don't have much appeal in terms of policies. No idea where this take came from. Most Democratic policies are quite popular with the electorate. My guess is that he's semantically differentiating between moderate no-real-change positions and actual progressivism, although it would be useful to know which policies he thinks are unpopular. Even the moderates want to legalize/ decriminalize marijuna, do something about guns, support women's rights, seriously address climate change, etc., all of which have amazing support.
Okay but again it's mostly a reaction, as you describe it. Sanders and Warren offer something, they say "No, that's bad", in the same way that Trump offers something and they say "No, that's bad". The idea of offering something outside of criticizing others is what Sent was going for, and I don't think liberals have done well, or are going to do well, if they choose to go there in this political moment.
|
Hunter Biden is trying to give Trump a run for his money in the being a degenerate department
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7733367/Hunter-Bidens-baby-mama-Lunden-Roberts-stripper-named-Dallas-gentlemens-club.html
Hunter Biden allegedly asked a strip club employee go out to buy him a sex toy that strippers then used on him at a Manhattan club.
This week shocking reports emerged accusing Biden of frequenting two Washington D.C. strip clubs where he met Lunden Roberts, the woman who sued Hunter Biden over the paternity of her child.
Biden also allegedly visited Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club NYC in Manhattan two times about a year ago, where he spent several thousand dollars and on one occasion sent an employee out to buy a dildo for strippers to use on him, according to a new Page Six report.
During both trips to the club, Biden and a female companion reportedly got a private room where they ordered bottles of alcohol and were joined by several strippers.
On one of those nights, workers suspected Biden was high and staff reportedly warned him that drugs weren't allowed on the premises.
That same night Biden allegedly sent a club worker out to purchase a dildo so the strippers could use it on him, a Page Six source reported.
'He was a pretty nice guy,' one source said. 'He was pretty friendly and a pretty good tipper.'
The news comes as it was revealed that Biden fathered a love child with a stripper named Lunden Roberts, also known by the stage name 'Dallas', who worked at The Mpire Gentlemen's Club in Washington D.C.
Biden allegedly frequented that club after dating his late brother's widow.
'He was well-known,' a source told Page Six of Biden, the son of democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden.
DailyMail.com revealed that Biden is the father of the Arkansas woman's child after obtaining court records.
How Joe Biden is still the front runner is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
