EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1976
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12450 Posts
On January 01 2020 08:56 JimmiC wrote: And on the other fringes you have people trying to convince you that the "capitalist class" or whatever is to blame for their problems. Different side of the same coin. One of the sides of the coin is lying, the other isn't. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26740 Posts
On January 01 2020 08:56 JimmiC wrote: And on the other fringes you have people trying to convince you that the "capitalist class" or whatever is to blame for their problems. Different side of the same coin. When it comes to the environment the issue is people want as much stuff for the cheapest possible, change it often to keep up with style or what have you and have things as convenient as possible. All the stats say left or right people are basically the same bad for the environment. There is no evil group we can defeat (immigrants or capitalist class) to fix it. We need to all change our behaviors and ways of life. Hell the Capitalists Class would just as much love to sell us lighting as a service where they could put in super efficient LED or lighting as it is now with as many bulbs as possible. When it comes to saving the planet it will take us all making meaningful change, which sucks, I wish there was one group of bad guys to hate. At any rate, Happy new years to all, Some of your euro posters and others from further "east" may have already passed it! I hope everyone had a good year and has a better 2020 by whatever metric you choose to measure. Well no there isn’t any group of people to hate in this one, it’s maybe the underpinning system? People want more stuff, for cheaper, but the same people don’t like immigrants taking their jobs, and outsourcing is bad. There’s nothing connected here whatsoever in terms of coherent thought. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 06:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: 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. So the fourth largest political party in the country....isnt really a political party? The fact that they have never won a position on the federal level is a testament more to the domination of D/R parties. Sanders used to be an Independent but never ran for president as one. And then he gave up a free ticket offered to him from Jill Stein. It's pretty obvious, to me, that he has no intention of running for president as an Independent. Compare him to someone like Ron Paul, who has actually ran as a Libertarian. I was born in AOC's district, and lived and worked there for many years. It's not "clearly more left leaning" than the democratic party. They just voted for her because the opponent is a typical establishment schmuck who was just handed the seat every year because of the D in front of his name, and she is a young colored woman who gave an effort. I don't know why you think it would be ridiculous for Bernie to join the Green Party, or even support it in lieu of fuckin hillary of all people. It goes against everything he claims to stand for That move he pulled lost him a lot of people who would vote for him. Including me. | ||
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
| ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:40 micronesia wrote: As I recall Bernie reluctantly supported Hillary, and it was only because the alternative was Trump. I don't fault him for that. I do lol. Either you support the establishment that you claim to fight against or you dont. Ron Paul didnt support the Republicans who beat him. This isnt the first time Bernie stepped in line either. Not like my vote matters anyway | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12450 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:43 BerserkSword wrote: I do lol. Either you support the establishment that you claim to fight against or you dont. Ron Paul didnt support the Republicans who beat him. This isnt the first time Bernie stepped in line either. Not like my vote matters anyway You can not support the establishment and recognize that republicans are worse in terms of being the establishment. It's not very complicated, they aren't hiding it all too well. Besides, if he didn't do it he would never have a shot at running as a democrat again or have any influence on the policies of the democratic party, so on top of not being based on a sound reasoning this would also be bad strategically. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:43 BerserkSword wrote: I do lol. Either you support the establishment that you claim to fight against or you dont. Ron Paul didnt support the Republicans who beat him. This isnt the first time Bernie stepped in line either. Not like my vote matters anyway My opinion is, generally fighting against "the establishment" as you put it does not mean you have to resists them in every way at all times. Sanders can choose the lesser evil between supporting Hillary and allowing Trump to win. Of course, the worst combination of him supporting Hillary AND Trump winning is what actually happened. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:49 Nebuchad wrote: You can not support the establishment and recognize that republicans are worse in terms of being the establishment. It's not very complicated, they aren't hiding it all too well. Besides, if he didn't do it he would never have a shot at running as a democrat again or have any influence on the policies of the democratic party, so on top of not being based on a sound reasoning this would also be bad strategically. Lol wut. Trump, the first president in US history with no political or military experience before being elected, is the worse establishment candidate than Hillary, career politician and pinnacle of corruption? not sure if srs. Supporting Hillary is supporting the establishment. There are no two ways around it. I mean Ron Paul ran twice in a row as a Republican despite saying he didnt support the Republican candidates. Bernie already saved the Federal Reserve from being fully audited, after he backstabbed Paul. He already goes missing during some of the votes to increase defense budget, and supports idiotic MI-complex money grabs like the F-35 program. And then he "reluctantly" supports Hillary, who represents everything he is supposed to stand against rofl. Yeah, no thanks. If Bernie's strategy is to fall in line with the establishment democrats, then why should I even think about supporting him, even if he is better than most options. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12450 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:59 BerserkSword wrote: Lol wut. Trump, the first president in US history with no political or military experience before being elected, is the worse establishment candidate than Hillary, career politician and pinnacle of corruption? not sure if srs. Supporting Hillary is supporting the establishment. There are no two ways around it. I mean Ron Paul ran twice in a row as a Republican despite saying he didnt support the Republican candidates. Bernie already saved the Federal Reserve from being fully audited, after he backstabbed Paul. He already goes missing during some of the votes to increase defense budget, and supports idiotic MI-complex money grabs like the F-35 program. And then he "reluctantly" supports Hillary, who represents everything he is supposed to stand against rofl. Yeah, no thanks. If Bernie's strategy is to fall in line with the establishment democrats, then why should I even think about supporting him, even if he is better than most options. The establishment is bad because it listens to rich businessmen too much and cares for their interests instead of those of the people. Cutting off the middle man and getting the rich businessman directly so that he can care for his interests instead of those of the people isn't exactly anti-establishment. Besides, Trump isn't coming alone. He's going to create a government and he's going to use republicans to do so. Those people are going to further the economically liberal politics of the establishment, even more boldly than establishment democrats would have. And an establishment democrat government will contain a few leftist voices just based on how the party is constructed, while a republican government will not. So yeah, I was serious. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 09:50 micronesia wrote: My opinion is, generally fighting against "the establishment" as you put it does not mean you have to resists them in every way at all times. Sanders can choose the lesser evil between supporting Hillary and allowing Trump to win. Of course, the worst combination of him supporting Hillary AND Trump winning is what actually happened. Sorry, I don't see how you can claim to be the champion against the establishment, while saying it's the single biggest threat to the American people for decades, and then throw your hat in to support the most establishment candidate in the race and perhaps one of the most esbalishment candidates of all time in Hillary... | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:04 Nebuchad wrote: The establishment is bad because it listens to rich businessmen too much and cares for their interests instead of those of the people. Cutting off the middle man and getting the rich businessman directly so that he can care for his interests instead of those of the people isn't exactly anti-establishment. Besides, Trump isn't coming alone. He's going to create a government and he's going to use republicans to do so. Those people are going to further the economically liberal politics of the establishment, even more boldly than establishment democrats would have. And an establishment democrat government will contain a few leftist voices just based on how the party is constructed, while a republican government will not. So yeah, I was serious. Bernie said he supported Hillary because he thought she was the best remaining candidate left for the American people - yes that includes even Jill Stein. Bernie said Hillary will make an "outstanding president" Bernie did not mention a single thing you mentioned in your speculative analysis. Trump is rich but I dont even think he's top 300 rich in the U.S. You just created a near conspiracy theory to explain why an outsider who was castigated by almost all politicians and media during his campaign, would be worse for the american people and better for the oligarchs than the pinnacle of corruption in America - a politician who has been decimating Americans for decades. The same kind of politician Bernie was supposed to stand against. There is nothing to support your theory. Bernie sanders fell in line like he's done in the past. I'd bet the farm that Bernie would support Bloomberg over trump as well (and he has said as much in the debates - that all democrats are better than trump). He supports steyer too. And bloomberg is legit big money and extremely corrupt. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12450 Posts
| ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:16 Nebuchad wrote: Well, is Trump being bad for the oligarchs right now? No. I never said Bernie shouldve supported trump tho. And I think Trump is better for Americans than Hillary would be, economically speaking, even if it's marginal. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 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 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. People talking about needing a third party to bring about change in our country, don't understand how our voting system works. The reason we only ever have 2 real candidates is because someone far left or right, who doesn't win the party nomination, will just syphon votes off of the republican or democratic candidate if they run as a third party... which will make that person a spoiler of the election. *Bernie didn't run 3rd party because he knows this. If he had done that Hillary would've 300% lost the election. He supported her (really more than almost any democratic leader, by going all over the country and giving speeches to get her elected) because he did not want our country to see a trump presidency, he knew the damage it would do. *If you want a third party possibility in the US (which I am for) you need to change our voting system to "rank choice voting" (one state has done this, I think it was Maine). In a system like this, Bernie would have run 3rd party against Clinton and trump, and imo won (especially if it got down to him and trump). *Also... the country doesn't lean right, we have been on an arc of progressive (left) growth for a long time. Two steps forward, one step back pacing... Regean and trump being the primary steps back. A conservative leaning would mean we have been moving toward 1) Less voting rights for people 2) Business controlling more power 3) More sexual discrimination (less gay and trans rights) 4) Less accountability for sexual misconduct 5) Less accountability for abuse of power in the police system 5) Getting fucked in our tax system (the trump tax cuts did fuck all of us that aren't big corporate board members, as in a couple years all the cuts for normal people will be completely rolled back to where they were, while corporate tax cuts don't expire... Meaning the people will have to make up for the lack of corporate money that was in the system and now won't be). The country was very well moving away from all these things, despite some set backs... the real impedance to progressive policies is almost always conservative politicians working to keep the money coming in for their rich donors (true for corporate dems as well). Medicare for all is a great example of this, majority support in polling, but politicians won't let it pass because the impact it will have on the insurance industry. Some dems won't support it, but universally republicans won't... no matter how much sense it makes. Reforming gun laws... another perfect example. Majority support for stronger regulations - Universal political conservative (right) opposition for change... yet many conservative gun owners would still want stronger regulations. Unrestricted gun ownership is a conservative ideal, not a left one. If we were a right leaning country... it wouldn't be an issue because the vast majority of people would accept the risk of having guns in society low and prioritize their ownership. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12450 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:24 BerserkSword wrote: No. I never said Bernie shouldve supported trump tho. And I think Trump is better for Americans than Hillary would be, economically speaking, even if it's marginal. One of the two is going to win though. If you just say support neither while being a leading figure on the left, you undermine Clinton specifically and therefore create a favorable situation for Trump (who was campaigning as a populist at the time btw, so he was lying about that as well - no surprise there). Not supporting anyone is virtually the same as supporting Trump given his political position. I disagree with you that it's marginally better than Hillary would be in terms of left vs right, I think it's marginally worse in terms of their politics alone and substantially worse in terms of the government they would create based on where the average establishment republican politician and the average establishment democratic politician are. But I would argue that if the difference is marginal, as you seem to think, then strategy considerations should prevail, and it would be a disaster strategically for Bernie to be associated with a Trump victory based on an insufficient backing of the democratic candidate. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On December 31 2019 10:00 GreenHorizons wrote: It's repetitive because you guys constantly do the "look at this thing Trump/Republicans did!? Aren't Republicans stupid/evil/hypocrites/etc..." Then several people chime in with their usual unfunny quips saying "yeah they are lol" and I eventually get bored of it and point out you guys are constantly distracted by Trump and the most absurd Republicans and incapable/unwilling to discuss the topics outside of partisan framing. The main reason being is it requires confronting contradictions that make them uncomfortable. Like they support politicians that advocate for/praise and seek the endorsements of war criminals too. As for Biden, like I said, he knows his policy only makes sense to advocate if it's a forced bargain with Republicans. If Republicans don't hold power/implode as a party, then he'd just have to advocate for the same bad policy without the excuse of having to appeal to Republicans. To tie it to my previous point, neoliberals can't make sense of Obama and Clinton's praising of war criminals, and them still getting their support, without Republicans/Trump. Joe Biden understands that. Don't care if this is a couple days old, it needs to be called out. GH, you peddle this same crap over and over by strawmanning others' views to make yourself sound smart. Unfortunately your opinions are not eye-opening or otherwise deep in a way that we don't understand. Everyone here understands that the primary political apparatus of the American Left leaves a lot to be desired. I'm pretty sure that literally no one here has said otherwise. The problem is that you trivialize and equivocate the two sides like they are the exact same thing. This is bullshit. It's insulting to countless people and it makes you look like a raging fool that can't be trusted at his word. It makes you look just as bad as when people on the right try to equivocate the rise in hate crimes and hate speech to "hate on the Left". You kept spouting off about "But Obama did this!" a couple days ago when at no point did I endorse anything that happened under Obama. You insisted on trying to make that my point because your argument was too fucking weak to defend without attributing an argument to me that didn't exist. Obama was a mediocre-at-best centrist president that was a big let-down for those of us on the Left. This still doesn't mean that he was anywhere close to as bad as Trump is. Also, talking about Kissinger as "one of the biggest war criminals in history" just makes people dislike you more. It is shockingly ignorant and naive. It's just another example of you demonizing the U.S. in any way to trivialize the horrible things that have happened elsewhere. Sure, Kissinger has done horrible things, but there are some truly despicable war criminals in the world that you clearly have not educated yourself on. It's part of your time-and-again strategy of saying something outrageously incorrect, getting corrected on it, and then creating a false dichotomy for those that correct you by saying, "If you don't agree with me you must think this!". This is a terrible tactic for having any kind of intellectual discussion and it's why you are such an outside in this thread. It isn't because you have controversial ideas, it's because you don't know how to have a real, meaningful debate over any given topic. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:05 BerserkSword wrote: Sorry, I don't see how you can claim to be the champion against the establishment, while saying it's the single biggest threat to the American people for decades, and then throw your hat in to support the most establishment candidate in the race and perhaps one of the most esbalishment candidates of all time in Hillary... Can you provide support for the portion of your claim in bold? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:05 BerserkSword wrote: Sorry, I don't see how you can claim to be the champion against the establishment, while saying it's the single biggest threat to the American people for decades, and then throw your hat in to support the most establishment candidate in the race and perhaps one of the most esbalishment candidates of all time in Hillary... trump is the equivalent of letting a shit-flinging circus monkey pilot a battleship and wear the captains hat while all the admirals stand by and watch... they stand by and try to give advice while not understanding why the monkey is just throwing shit, screaming... Then he fires them and he replaces them with more monkeys like him, "lets put the janitor in charge of all the ships forward cannons." In my view this is a legitimate analogy to our current situation. That is what Bernie was against... Bernie actually wanted the ship to be piloted by a captain, which Clinton was... even if you don't agree with her policy or leadership, she was an actual leader with experience. trump is a sociopath. Is it that hard to understand that if Bernie is looking at 2 choices... one a leader with not the best policy, and two a sociopathic lier who has criminal tendencies in Realestate, that Bernie made a decision to do what he thought was best for us, rather than just stick to his political viewpoint/reputation? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23919 Posts
On January 01 2020 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote: ... Also, talking about Kissinger as "one of the biggest war criminals in history" just makes people dislike you more. It is shockingly ignorant and naive. Sure, Kissinger has done horrible things, but... This is what I was getting at. If you can do the "sure he did some bad stuff, but..." with Kissinger there's really no limit to the depravity of the argument and the moral superiority claimed over Trump pardoning this guy is nonsense. As for Berserk's stuff, everyone understands he's basically a Trump supporter trying to dissuade people like me from supporting Sanders right? | ||
| ||
