EPThttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1211899385589706752.html
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1975
| 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 | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1211899385589706752.html | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 01 2020 02:55 Gorsameth wrote: The easiest Trump victory ever because Bernie would take votes from the Democrats and even if together they would get above 50% neither of them would be bigger then the Republicans. There are good reasons for why Bernie, an Independent candidate for his Senate seat, is trying to run as a Democrat. Aside from funding and a (D) next to his name and the automatic voters that brings, trying to run as a 3e party candidate in the US doesn't make 'your' side more likely to win. It merely makes it easier for the other side to win. I understand the theory behind this. Reality is that Trump won. There are people in this thread who think Hillary lost because of Bernie so no change there either. Obviously easier to say this after the fact. GreenHorizon's believes we're all going to die from climate change if democrats are reelected so he should be on board with splitting the democratic party at least. People were talking about needing a third party to get started for political change and I'd like to hear how Bernie 2016 wasn't the best opportunity for that change. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35091 Posts
On January 01 2020 03:55 Nebuchad wrote: Just a cool twitter thread about the state of a 2.2M subscriber conservative Youtube community, thought I'd share. https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1211899385589706752 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1211899385589706752.html Only the finest people. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
On January 01 2020 04:23 JimmiC wrote: In the states the Gun lovers are not strictly conservative. The revolutionary war, and needing guns to protect their rights comes from the fringes of both sides. And that gun ownership is important comes from all sides. As much as I would like it to be a "just the right" phenomenon it is not. This specific community has a bunch of nazis and talks about how democrats are communists itching to take away their rights, which can only be met with death through a civil war. Currently attacking a pro-gun socialist elected representative (and overall extremely cool person) in this video. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22702 Posts
On January 01 2020 04:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: GreenHorizon's believes we're all going to die from climate change if democrats are reelected so he should be on board with splitting the democratic party at least. tbf the belief that both parties are leading us to global ecological disaster is in line with the best available science, those that disagree, aren't. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22702 Posts
On January 01 2020 04:28 Nebuchad wrote: This specific community has a bunch of nazis and talks about how democrats are communists itching to take away their rights, which can only be met with death through a civil war. Currently attacking a pro-gun socialist elected representative (and overall extremely cool person) in this video. You have to know your audience is completely incompetent, totally disingenuous, or both to have the guts to take a bill about allowing workers to strike and tell 2 million people it's meant to take their gun rights away. But yeah, same crowd is probably keeping guys like this in office. We have white supremacist terrorist in office over here in Washington. Matt Shea, a far-right Washington lawmaker with ties to white supremacist groups. The four-month investigation, commissioned by the state House, found that Shea had engaged in “domestic terrorism” www.latimes.com | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 04:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I understand the theory behind this. Reality is that Trump won. There are people in this thread who think Hillary lost because of Bernie so no change there either. Obviously easier to say this after the fact. GreenHorizon's believes we're all going to die from climate change if democrats are reelected so he should be on board with splitting the democratic party at least. People were talking about needing a third party to get started for political change and I'd like to hear how Bernie 2016 wasn't the best opportunity for that change. We already have other parties. Like the libertarian party and the Green Party. Hell Jill Stein even offered the Green Party spot to Bernie. Unsurprisingly Bernie didn’t take her offer. I mean we are talking about the same Bernie who supported Hillary in 2016 after the primaries, which was shocking to me tbh. He could’ve not supported the same establishment that he has always said to be against but he did. He could’ve even supported Jill Stein but he chose Hillary. And you’re thinking Bernie is the best chance at a successful 3rd party? Splitting the Democrats will be a death sentence for leftists. People have to come to terms with the fact that Americans lean right. There’s no way that someone who calls himself a socialist and straight up says he’s going to raise middle class taxes is going to win a general election in America anytime soon imo. All that will happen is that leftists from the dem side will blame Bernie for stealing votes from the Dems and allowing a republican to get an easy victory. That’s what they did to Nader | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On January 01 2020 04:28 Nebuchad wrote: This specific community has a bunch of nazis and talks about how democrats are communists itching to take away their rights, which can only be met with death through a civil war. Currently attacking a pro-gun socialist elected representative (and overall extremely cool person) in this video. The internet was a mistake | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 01 2020 03:55 Nebuchad wrote: Just a cool twitter thread about the state of a 2.2M subscriber conservative Youtube community, thought I'd share. https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1211899385589706752 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1211899385589706752.html I'm a gun owner and I'm subscribed to iraqveteran8888 although I haven't watched their videos in over a year now. I found myself reading their "Gun Gripes" comments section a long time ago and to put it simply, a lot of the people in there are really eager to kill people. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 01 2020 05:07 BerserkSword wrote: We already have other parties. Like the libertarian party and the Green Party. Hell Jill Stein even offered the Green Party spot to Bernie. Unsurprisingly Bernie didn’t take her offer. I mean we are talking about the same Bernie who supported Hillary in 2016 after the primaries, which was shocking to me tbh. He could’ve not supported the same establishment that he has always said to be against but he did. He could’ve even supported Jill Stein but he chose Hillary. And you’re thinking Bernie is the best chance at a successful 3rd party? Splitting the Democrats will be a death sentence for leftists. People have to come to terms with the fact that Americans lean right. There’s no way that someone who calls himself a socialist and straight up says he’s going to raise middle class taxes is going to win a general election in America anytime soon imo. All that will happen is that leftists from the dem side will blame Bernie for stealing votes from the Dems and allowing a republican to get an easy victory. That’s what they did to Nader The Green Party isn't really a political party in the US. They're a group who plays presidential race every four years. They've never held federal office despite being around for almost 30 years. In this hypothetical he would have ran as independent or declared as the labor party, not lost the democratic nomination and then sore loser as the Green party. Say what you will about him falling in line with the establishment, but he'd be an absolute moron to join the Green party. Would this hypothetical labor party turn out the same way? Potentially, but they'd at least have Bernie who is a Senator. I'd assume some other politicians would join as well like those in safe 'democrat' districts like AOC that are clearly more left leaning than the democratic party. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On January 01 2020 06:18 Djzapz wrote: I'm a gun owner and I'm subscribed to iraqveteran8888 although I haven't watched their videos in over a year now. I found myself reading their "Gun Gripes" comments section a long time ago and to put it simply, a lot of the people in there are really eager to kill people. Coming from FL, where guns are owned on both sides, the right talk about the left trying to take their guns away and going to war for it, the left talk about how the right thinks the left doesn't have guns and how they're ready to use them on the right if they try something. One of the main reasons why I left FL. The mentality for civil war between both parties has already been implanted sadly. However, I've seen far more aggression from people on the right about killing people than on the left. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On January 01 2020 06:01 JimmiC wrote: While it is true that bloody revolution is needed to overthrow a monarchy/dictatorship is true. But those that claim you need have a bloody revolution to over throw a democracy are a completely different breed. In the first set of circumstance you have no other choice, in the second you are saying you know better than the masses and need to exert power over them for the "greater good". In history I'm not sure where where the second one has actually worked out better for the masses, it certainly works out great for a different few. But acting like the two situations are the same is fallacy. Depends what the revolt is for and how bloody it is I suppose. There’s also a tendency to rewrite, or at least re-emphasise elements of history so the narrative is that incremental change works. It leaves out a lot of disruptive protest, even violence and doesn’t make clear how unpopular the cause was in its contemporary period, or how necessary desperate action may have been. The last transitional period of figures gaining the necessary traction and changing things is hugely overemphasised, so it’s MLK asked nicely and things changed, the Good Friday Agreement happened, etc etc. A revolution need not be bloody anyway, not just morally better IMO but also way more hypothetically effective would just be mass general strikes. Whatever stage of our descendants we’re talking about are going to be pretty fucking pissed off reading about us in history books if there’s a catastrophic climate event. ‘Teacher, why didn’t they take the required action in the 100 years that scientific consensus was that it was needed?’ ‘Oh it seems obvious to you naive youngsters, but it’s rather complicated. They thought capitalise would self-regulate through incremental change.’ | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6217 Posts
The core reason is that the average voter is short-sighted and unwilling/unable for their daily costs to rise; "they were poor and ignorant and easily manipulated, but we had to listen to them because democracy". Also "a lot of powerful people tried to hold on to power by manipulating them". | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22702 Posts
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. The story that it was the violence against Black people that woke white America up is a myth that should not be allowed to continue. Remember there's been no measurable improvement in the gaps between Black and white people other than superficial representation since then so it's just factually untrue. Really let this sink in before you respond to it if you do: who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom...Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I promise Black and other oppressed people wont be waiting another 50 years for white moderates to get it. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On January 01 2020 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote: I feel obligated to point out that MLK was unpopular right up thorough when the US government conspired to assassinate him, (1/3 of Americans said he had it coming) his Birmingham lines about white moderates are about exactly the argument being made (as well as Wombats point about not knowing the history). The story that it was the violence against Black people that woke white America up is a myth that should not be allowed to continue. Remember there's been no measurable improvement in the gaps between Black and white people other than superficial representation since then so it's just factually untrue. Really let this sink in before you respond to it if you do: I promise Black and other oppressed people wont be waiting another 50 years for white moderates to get it. Yeah this was what I was getting at, well expanded upon. I’m culturally British myself, but that’s a personal thing really, I’m quite national self determination in basis worldview wise. You don’t have what we have now without the IRA, Northern Irish Catholics tried the legitimate route, it didn’t exactly work out. IRA raises the stakes and eventually legitimate politics delivered things. But now the story is framed as ‘the dropping of arms delivered peace’ rather than ‘the injecting of arms made the British have to pay attention in the first place until legitimate political compromise was made.’ | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On January 01 2020 08:19 JimmiC wrote: What was the support for what the IRA wanted from the public? What is the support for the revolution that is getting called for in this thread? These two things at not remotely the same. One you are talking about supporting the majority being held down, the other you are talking about holding down the majority. They had no democratic solution, there is one in this case, it is just that not enough agree it is the right course. Well the Northern Irish population of Catholics were a considerable minority then. I’m not supporting a majority being held down at all, majority opinion if you cut away the bullshit will align with the revolution. Under democracy we have Donald Trump convincing people immigrants and other mean countries are to blame for their problems when that’s patently not the case, just cut out the middle man | ||
| ||
