EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1926
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On December 04 2019 18:05 Belisarius wrote: I did wonder if Harris would turn out to be the best head-to-head contender for the general. The female black DA against the senile orange mob boss looked like a good match-up to me. I was quite surprised she stalled so hard so fast. There was clearly something counting against her that wasn't obvious to me. Basically she was supposed to pull Black voters, but didn't because she's an unrepentant cop who did a lot of messed up cop stuff. Once it was clear she wasn't pulling Black voters, the Clinton camp (much of her staff and organization came from 2016 Clinton) moved on to their next preference. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On December 04 2019 21:14 Aquanim wrote: A fair proportion of those black voters would probably have to have come from Biden, who hasn't imploded nearly as fast as several people predicted. If he had, Harris might have had a larger opening. Sorta but not quite imo. Biden was predicted to collapse sooner (and he sorta has without much attention payed to it) but Kamala was supposed to take Bernie's/consolidate with Booker Black under 40 support right away and they both failed miserably. When younger Black voters completely shut her down it was a dead campaign walking. Without young Black voters the older voters weren't going to support Kamala over Joe or Pete. EDIT: A critical reason Obama and Sanders were able to mount remarkable underdog campaigns was massive youth support. None of these other candidates (the billionaires could buy establishment support) have a chance to overwhelm Biden's establishment support without it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
I don’t really recall much in terms of what she’d actually do, most commentators and subsequently my impression was ‘she’s a competent women with a track record in public office.’ That’s basically it, she loses out in so many other areas. Bernie has his policies that many people are enthused by. Warren has some of that but also the ‘competent woman with a track record’ part, and Warren’s is in advocating financial reform and protecting consumer rights, Harris’ is in law and order which doesn’t play well with some of the demographics she needs to pull. Biden has the name recognition, Buttigieg has been running a decent campaign and avoiding gaffes thus far of the more centrist candidates, then you have the hipster choice campaign being Andrew Yang and his Merry Gang If there’s a niche there it’s pretty tight and she har to claim it and gain momentum pretty damn quickly, which didn’t really happen. I think it’s a good sign that just being black isn’t sufficient to court an enthusiastic black support of a candidate | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On December 04 2019 05:01 Wombat_NI wrote: I can honestly say the idea of subsidies to support the idea of an occupational lineage baffles me. Isn't that exactly what we've been fighting for the last 200 years? To prevent the privileges of a social caste? If there was a family lineage of lawyers, should we support that too, as parental lawyers will be disapointed if their children wanted to be farmers? Or for engineers? Where would you draw the line?Yes, you don’t have to be some crazy conservative to like some form of lineage. My grandad was an engineer, as was his father. My dad was an electronic engineer and subsequently I’m studying to be a software engineer currently. My grandad (who outlived my dad by a good 7 years) always said he got a bit of a kick that his descendants choice of career path, while rooted in similar interests also reflected the changes of the world and emerging technologies. Not quite the same as a family farm but it’s still a thing. You want your children to do better than you in life but you also want them to be a ‘better version’ of you, not something entirely different. I think most parents if they’re being honest want that as the ideal, not to say they won’t support their children on going on different paths. I’d support my son if he decided to be a professional drag queen and was gay, I’d still rather he was a heterosexual nerd who liked RTS games if given the choice. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
On December 04 2019 23:06 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I can honestly say the idea of subsidies to support the idea of an occupational lineage baffles me. Isn't that exactly what we've been fighting for the last 200 years? To prevent the privileges of a social caste? If there was a family lineage of lawyers, should we support that too, as parental lawyers will be disapointed if their children wanted to be farmers? Or for engineers? Where would you draw the line? I’ve said multiple times I don’t think subsidies necessarily are a solution to what may/may not be the problem(s) here. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10650 Posts
Warren? Crook, bad, horrible Buttigieg? Basically S A T A N... Democracy is about compromise, in a country that just elected someone like Trump (and not long ago Bush...) you should be erratic that someone like Warren or even Buttigieg (which is a FAAAR third for me) could make it. Yet, the leftist purity crusaders are out in force. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On December 05 2019 00:39 farvacola wrote: I wouldn’t use YouTube as a basis for estimating general attitudes of “the left,” that place is ground zero for misinformation and half-truths. Yes, some holier than thou lefties are anti anyone who trends towards the center, but pinning down the number of folks accurately represented by YouTube comments is a fool’s game. Could you expand on what you mean by that? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On December 05 2019 00:39 farvacola wrote: I wouldn’t use YouTube as a basis for estimating general attitudes of “the left,” that place is ground zero for misinformation and half-truths. Yes, some holier than thou lefties are anti anyone who trends towards the center, but pinning down the number of folks accurately represented by YouTube comments is a fool’s game. Indeed. Youtube's recommendation systems encourage those making videos to make the most controversial, outrageous, or otherwise eye-catching videos possible, and that naturally attracts people who fall for this stuff. Their system doesn't allow nuance if you want to be successful, which is how we end up with a bunch of grifters like Ben Shapiro shouting down people, and videos that conclude with the most unreasonable, ridiculous takes possible. It's not only not surprising to hear that there's a "Bernie or Bust" sentiment among those who are in some of Youtube's various politics bubbles, but entirely expected. This is the bed Youtube has made itself. Good content from Youtube's perspective for a long time now has not been content that is informative or useful to users, but content that generates views and interactions that they can use to sell ads, so it's natural that their system has evolved to encourage these types of videos. It's not just an issue with political videos, but an issue overall on the platform. And that's not even getting into the misinformation and propaganda efforts that happen on the platform, but that's a different can of worms. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12062 Posts
There is some level of pushback that I find logical when it comes to primaries. Bernie is the best candidate for the left, it's not that close. Warren is much better than others and I'm very sure that the overwhelming majority of the Youtube left will vote for her if Bernie isn't available as an option. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On December 05 2019 01:13 farvacola wrote: Simply that there are people who figure as the kernel of truth underlying the “Bernie Bro” meme. Presumably less than the PUMA types. I was just trying to figure out if you were talking about people to Bernie's left or over enthusiastic Sanders supporters. Sounds like the latter? If that's the case yeah, but I agree with Neb. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2582 Posts
On December 05 2019 00:35 Velr wrote: What baffles me is how vile the left is on YouTube to everyone that isn't Bernie. Warren? Crook, bad, horrible Buttigieg? Basically S A T A N... Democracy is about compromise, in a country that just elected someone like Trump (and not long ago Bush...) you should be erratic that someone like Warren or even Buttigieg (which is a FAAAR third for me) could make it. Yet, the leftist purity crusaders are out in force. Are you sure it is "the left"? Disinformation campaigns is a real thing and one of the "best" things you can do is exactly this. It's very hard to convince a voter to switch from (D) to (R) but it is pretty easy to make them not vote. And one of the best ways to do this is to segregate the candidates as much as possible into "mine" and "the others". That way when one of them invariably wins everyone else will feel that "their" candidate lost and be way less inclined to vote for them. And a key way to do this is to promote this kind of thing on social media. You don't even have to post it you just have to find it somewhere deep down in the muck and then use your botnets to upvote/spread it. Sow "us and them" in the primaries and reap the benefits in the general election. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35118 Posts
On December 05 2019 03:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Turley is something else. I appreciated him calling for Bush to be prosecuted for war crimes but he is just shredding any hope for impeachment even getting out of the house. That's his entire point of being there. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10650 Posts
On December 05 2019 01:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Are you sure it is "the left"? Disinformation campaigns is a real thing and one of the "best" things you can do is exactly this. It's very hard to convince a voter to switch from (D) to (R) but it is pretty easy to make them not vote. And one of the best ways to do this is to segregate the candidates as much as possible into "mine" and "the others". That way when one of them invariably wins everyone else will feel that "their" candidate lost and be way less inclined to vote for them. And a key way to do this is to promote this kind of thing on social media. You don't even have to post it you just have to find it somewhere deep down in the muck and then use your botnets to upvote/spread it. Sow "us and them" in the primaries and reap the benefits in the general election. I'm talking about some of the biggest leftist youtubers here. Not all of them are guilty to the same extent but "bernie or bust" is just barely avoided... The comment sections of these, uuugh. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35118 Posts
| ||
| ||
