|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 01 2020 12:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:On December 31 2019 10:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 31 2019 09:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:Jesus this thread is so repetitive. It's just GH saying the same thing over and over and over again on every subject and the same discussion arising every single time. I was reading from afar and waiting for the whataboutObama moment. Since we reached it, should we move on? This GHvstheworld bs is so dull. Anyway. Biden seems to be going further and further right. Seems that he thinks the election will happen with the independents and moderate republicans disillusioned with Trump. Not quite sure about that strategy. Saying that he would run with a republican against Trump is probably just a way to appeal to a certain electorate, but I feel it will alienate him a ton if people. Source 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. ... 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?
Holy shit man. You literally cropped and edited the post to change what he says, demonstrating the exact fucking thing he's pointing out in the bit that you cropped.
Nobody is arguing that kissinger is good. He is also not "one of the worst war criminals the world has ever seen".
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. 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!".
|
On January 01 2020 09:37 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 06:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 01 2020 05:07 BerserkSword wrote:On January 01 2020 04:12 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 01 2020 02:55 Gorsameth wrote:On January 01 2020 01:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
How does America look running up to the 2020 election if Bernie ran as labor party instead of a democrat? 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. 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. 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.
If Sanders was going to run as an independent or Green he would have to have done it from the start. Sore loser laws prevent him from even being on the ballet in almost all states after losing to Hillary in the primary. The idea that he could have taken the "free ticket offered by Jill Stein" is just ignoring reality.
and just for the record. A political party that doesn't hold any power in the government isn't much of a political party in my mind. You're welcome to disagree with that.
|
On January 01 2020 12:38 Belisarius wrote:Holy shit man. You literally cropped and edited the post to change what it says, demonstrating the exact fucking thing he's pointing out in the bit that you cropped. Nobody is arguing that kissinger is good. He is also not "one of the worst war criminals the world has ever seen". Show nested quote +It's just another example of you demonizing the U.S. in any way to trivialize the horrible things that have happened elsewhere.
No one was trivializing anything happening elsewhere. People are attempting to trivialize Kissinger's multi-million person body count to make Trump's pardon worse than it was (it's obviously bad).
Kissinger is most definitely one of the worse living war criminals. As the article about it mentioned many of the other contenders were actually fruits of his horrifying policies.
|
Can you not see the issue with saying "(it's obviously bad) BUT KISSINGER" while complaining when people respond "sure, kissinger, but... like... we were talking about Trump?"
They are both fucking bad. One is currently president and is therefore a more immediate issue.
|
On January 01 2020 12:49 Belisarius wrote:
Can you not see the issue with saying "(it's obviously bad) BUT KISSINGER" while complaining when people respond "sure, kissinger, but... like... we were talking about Trump?"
They are both fucking bad. One is currently president and is therefore a more immediate issue.
I don't have a problem with the topicality of Trump thing, if you go back you can see me making my argument about it specific to that not talking about Democrats at all.
The issue was when people pretend that when it comes to war criminals, defending, awarding, coveting the endorsement of them, etc... was something just Republicans do.
So I was pointing out it's a bipartisan affair and they couldn't just say "yeah but we're trying to score political points" then not discuss the issues that surround US war criminals getting away with their crimes. Despite this specific guy already getting away scot free with killing some innocent girl long before Trump even knew his name. Which is a big part of why it will continue when Trump's gone and will get as much attention as that guy's first innocent victim did.
Rather than just say they were going for partisan cheapshots and not interested in discussing the issues at hand they attack me personally and lament me pointing out that their support for politicians who award war criminals IS DIFFERENT, and also unacceptably bad.
EDIT: I'd just add that this is exactly the argument made by Republicans during the Obama administration for why we shouldn't talk about the Bush administration. It was a poor argument then and still is now.
EDIT2:Surely people remember the
"Obama is doing X"
then "Well Republicans ..."
then "We're talking about the current president, when are you going to stop talking about Republicans/Bush!?!"
then "The world didn't spring into existence when Obama took office, he inherited things and that matters"
|
On January 01 2020 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue was when people pretend that when it comes to war criminals, defending, awarding, coveting the endorsement of them, etc... was something just Republicans do.
Absolutely nobody in the thread did this.
Here is velr's summary.
On December 30 2019 22:08 Velr wrote:
You don't seem to get this:
Under Obama: Military or whatever justice system let him go.
Under Trump: Military or whatever justice system was pressured by Trump to let him go, was hindered to demote him and let a head roll over it.
Those two things are not the same.
EDIT: and here is stratos, for completemess:
On January 01 2020 10:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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.
[...]
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.
Nobody has attempted to claim bad things are only done by republicans.
What people did was choose not to engage with your standard tactic of:
Step 1. Whataboutism
Step 2. Strawman all responses
This thread always goes to shit when somebody tries to repeatedly interact with you, so I will not continue further. I think it's clear enough to anyone who cares.
|
|
|
On January 01 2020 13:22 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue was when people pretend that when it comes to war criminals, defending, awarding, coveting the endorsement of them, etc... was something just Republicans do. Absolutely nobody in the thread did this. + Show Spoiler +Here is velr's summary. On December 30 2019 22:08 Velr wrote:
You don't seem to get this:
Under Obama: Military or whatever justice system let him go.
Under Trump: Military or whatever justice system was pressured by Trump to let him go, was hindered to demote him and let a head roll over it.
Those two things are not the same. Nobody has attempted to claim bad things are only done by republicans. What people did was choose not to engage with your standard tactic of: Step 1. Whataboutism Step 2. Strawman all responses This thread always goes to shit when somebody tries to repeatedly interact with you, so I will not continue further. I think it's clear enough to anyone who cares.
I don't think people care but if someone does they can read on for clarification, otherwise, I'll leave it there
+ Show Spoiler +If that's where you're basing it from then I understand your confusion. The first comment that wasn't a cheapshot at Trump but the system as a whole from me was On December 29 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2019 03:39 KwarK wrote:On December 29 2019 02:08 semantics wrote:On December 29 2019 00:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2019 18:55 Zambrah wrote:On December 28 2019 17:53 Erasme wrote:
I'm sure that if you needed a killer, your first choice wouldn't be the guy that kills civilians for fun Wouldnt that be exactly what you wanted out of a killer? Killing children isn’t exactly max difficulty. He’s no Rambo. The court martial that started all this was him stabbing a bound captive, taking a photo of the body, and texting a buddy with the photo and a confession that he had stabbed him. While it’s clear the guy has no moral problems with killing children he still needs someone to tie them up for him first. Personally I think they should hire whoever ties the children up before he gets there, they’re the real hero. The posing with dead body is a punishable offense by itself. Especially with the surrounding circumstances. It's amazing how guilty 2 of the 3 men Trump "pardon'd", their cases were more about what level of punishment would be right not if they actually did what was claimed His defence on the stabbing of the tied up boy was also one of his squad mates, who had previously made sworn statements saying the guy killed him, changing the story to the squad mate mercy killing the boy after the accused stabbed him and I have no idea how he got found not guilty of murder based on that. The SEAL bragged about stabbing him to death, had a written confession, and sworn statements by witnesses. But the jury got confused about whether he stabbed them to death or whether he stabbed them to the point someone else mercy killed them and decided that probably no stabbing took place. Shit’s nuts. Yeah, "saved his future" was a bit hyperbolic, he was going to find gainful employment for a mercenary group somewhere whether Trump stepped in or not, not rot in a cell or anything. Then came: On December 29 2019 05:10 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2019 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm very curious: Do we have anyone here who reads or posts in this thread that supports this seal? It seems bizarre to me that Trump is propping him up so much. Do people agree with with the guy did? He killed innocent people in the Middle East in cold blood. Pretty sure the only ones that agree with what he did are those that want all Middle Easterners to die. So basically it’s just Trump pandering more to his base. Which made me think, "wait a minute... 9 out of 10 people killed with the drone program Obama accelerated after taking it over from Bush were innocent civilians according to the goverments own reporting (almost certainly undercounting civilians) Democrats still talk that guy up And their nominee in 2016 was courting Kissinger for an endorsement, these guys shouldn't act like their preferred politicians don't cozy up with war criminals for political points too". So I said that. In retrospect, saying "the military" endorsed it is too far for people who don't agree that the military justice system also has basically the same issues holding their own accountable as police or even many more left wing unions and I should have made that premise clear before saying that. The US is so trash at accountability people just take it as a given anymore. China sentenced a thieving banker to death (he has a chance for reprieve) and Germany is still hunting down 90+ year old Nazis. Meanwhile people want to push Kissinger down the list of war criminals their politicians embraced to make Trump's embrace of this one seem anomalously bad (or just look at it without any reflection of the events/systems leading to it) for partisan point scoring.
|
|
|
On January 01 2020 14:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 13:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 01 2020 13:22 Belisarius wrote:On January 01 2020 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue was when people pretend that when it comes to war criminals, defending, awarding, coveting the endorsement of them, etc... was something just Republicans do. Absolutely nobody in the thread did this. + Show Spoiler +Here is velr's summary. On December 30 2019 22:08 Velr wrote:
You don't seem to get this:
Under Obama: Military or whatever justice system let him go.
Under Trump: Military or whatever justice system was pressured by Trump to let him go, was hindered to demote him and let a head roll over it.
Those two things are not the same. Nobody has attempted to claim bad things are only done by republicans. What people did was choose not to engage with your standard tactic of: Step 1. Whataboutism Step 2. Strawman all responses This thread always goes to shit when somebody tries to repeatedly interact with you, so I will not continue further. I think it's clear enough to anyone who cares. I don't think people care but if someone does they can read on for clarification, otherwise, I'll leave it there + Show Spoiler +If that's where you're basing it from then I understand your confusion. The first comment that wasn't a cheapshot at Trump but the system as a whole from me was On December 29 2019 03:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2019 03:39 KwarK wrote:On December 29 2019 02:08 semantics wrote:On December 29 2019 00:29 KwarK wrote:On December 28 2019 18:55 Zambrah wrote:On December 28 2019 17:53 Erasme wrote:
I'm sure that if you needed a killer, your first choice wouldn't be the guy that kills civilians for fun Wouldnt that be exactly what you wanted out of a killer? Killing children isn’t exactly max difficulty. He’s no Rambo. The court martial that started all this was him stabbing a bound captive, taking a photo of the body, and texting a buddy with the photo and a confession that he had stabbed him. While it’s clear the guy has no moral problems with killing children he still needs someone to tie them up for him first. Personally I think they should hire whoever ties the children up before he gets there, they’re the real hero. The posing with dead body is a punishable offense by itself. Especially with the surrounding circumstances. It's amazing how guilty 2 of the 3 men Trump "pardon'd", their cases were more about what level of punishment would be right not if they actually did what was claimed His defence on the stabbing of the tied up boy was also one of his squad mates, who had previously made sworn statements saying the guy killed him, changing the story to the squad mate mercy killing the boy after the accused stabbed him and I have no idea how he got found not guilty of murder based on that. The SEAL bragged about stabbing him to death, had a written confession, and sworn statements by witnesses. But the jury got confused about whether he stabbed them to death or whether he stabbed them to the point someone else mercy killed them and decided that probably no stabbing took place. Shit’s nuts. Yeah, "saved his future" was a bit hyperbolic, he was going to find gainful employment for a mercenary group somewhere whether Trump stepped in or not, not rot in a cell or anything. Then came: On December 29 2019 05:10 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2019 04:00 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm very curious: Do we have anyone here who reads or posts in this thread that supports this seal? It seems bizarre to me that Trump is propping him up so much. Do people agree with with the guy did? He killed innocent people in the Middle East in cold blood. Pretty sure the only ones that agree with what he did are those that want all Middle Easterners to die. So basically it’s just Trump pandering more to his base. Which made me think, "wait a minute... 9 out of 10 people killed with the drone program Obama accelerated after taking it over from Bush were innocent civilians according to the goverments own reporting (almost certainly undercounting civilians) Democrats still talk that guy up And their nominee in 2016 was courting Kissinger for an endorsement, these guys shouldn't act like their preferred politicians don't cozy up with war criminals for political points too". So I said that. In retrospect, saying "the military" endorsed it is too far for people who don't agree that the military justice system also has basically the same issues holding their own accountable as police or even many more left wing unions and I should have made that premise clear before saying that. The US is so trash at accountability people just take it as a given anymore. China sentenced a thieving banker to death (he has a chance for reprieve) and Germany is still hunting down 90+ year old Nazis. Meanwhile people want to push Kissinger down the list of war criminals their politicians embraced to make Trump's embrace of this one seem anomalously bad (or just look at it without any reflection of the events/systems leading to it) for partisan point scoring. spoilered for reasons. + Show Spoiler +So if every time you talked about socialism or any sort of leftist policy one person constantly, every time you posted anything about anyone, brought up Stalin and how many people he killed so you shouldn't act like your preferred politicians are not guilty of some of the worst war crimes and humanitarian crisis of the 20th and 21st century.
Would you think this is a appropriate counter point to whatever it was that you were trying to say? Would you find it especially annoying if someone was using another socialists comment and point like it was yours because you are both socialists?
Because my guess is you would not think was a appropriate response and would likely be as frustrated as the rest of us.
Pretty sure you've mixed up Lenin and Stalin again so lets nip this in the bud before people start repeating it again too.
|
|
|
It's funny you guys keep using "whataboutism" as if it's etymology wasn't that it was a way to turn focus away from the fact that the US government was assassinating and imprisoning political opposition like MLK, Fred Hampton, anti-war activists, and so on and back onto criticizing the USSR.
Here we are all these years later and Ferguson protesters are dying under questionable circumstances, Ramsey Orta's locked up possibly getting poisoned, documented white supremacist terrorist lawmakers are running amok, and the list goes on... and instead of the USSR it's Trump/Russia that's being used to deflect from the problems pervading US politics at large and those of us who have been suffering through it all get blamed for not being interested in how Trump offends their delicate sensibilities and they preferred when the atrocities came with that Obama charm, though they still didn't like it then.
EDIT: Just to cap it off, in order to be engaging in the type of "whataboutism" you guys are accusing me of I would have needed not to have already made comments about how I wouldn't be surprised if this guy Trump pardoned is probably a top candidate for a new security force loyal to Trump specifically and why that's ominous.
The USSR didn't respond to accusations of their government doing bad stuff with "yeah, it's probably even worse than it looks and we should talk about it in the context of how it relates to our peers to unpack its pervasive and persistent nature"
EDIT2: On January 01 2020 16:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's funny you guys keep using "whataboutism" as if it's etymology wasn't that it was a way to turn focus away from the fact that the US government was assassinating and imprisoning political opposition like MLK, Fred Hampton, anti-war activists, and so on and back onto criticizing the USSR.
Here we are all these years later and Ferguson protesters are dying under questionable circumstances, Ramsey Orta's locked up possibly getting poisoned, documented white supremacist terrorist lawmakers are running amok, and the list goes on... and instead of the USSR it's Trump/Russia that's being used to deflect from the problems pervading US politics at large and those of us who have been suffering through it all get blamed for not being interested in how Trump offends their delicate sensibilities and they preferred when the atrocities came with that Obama charm, though they still didn't like it then. The etymology of the phrase is not material to its applicability in this instance or its intellectual bankruptcy as a discussion tactic.
I think it's causing miscommunication because I'm not doing what the word means but people insist on accusing me of it but I'm not going to keep making new posts about it at this point.
|
On January 01 2020 15:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
It's funny you guys keep using "whataboutism" as if it's etymology wasn't that it was a way to turn focus away from the fact that the US government was assassinating and imprisoning political opposition like MLK, Fred Hampton, anti-war activists, and so on and back onto criticizing the USSR.
Here we are all these years later and Ferguson protesters are dying under questionable circumstances, Ramsey Orta's locked up possibly getting poisoned, documented white supremacist terrorist lawmakers are running amok, and the list goes on... and instead of the USSR it's Trump/Russia that's being used to deflect from the problems pervading US politics at large and those of us who have been suffering through it all get blamed for not being interested in how Trump offends their delicate sensibilities and they preferred when the atrocities came with that Obama charm, though they still didn't like it then.
The etymology of the phrase is not material to its applicability in this instance or its intellectual bankruptcy as a discussion tactic.
|
Happy New Year to all the TL.net politicians!
|
On January 01 2020 00:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2019 18:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 31 2019 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:
One question that I never manage to have Biff or Velr answer is why they keep pretending that liberals are leftwing when they're from France/Norway and Switzerland. I've asked both of them several times but they always ignored it. Would be a non-repetitive topic to go into. I consider that left wing is what pushes a country to the left. Obama was left wing because his social programs, vision of society and reforms pushed America firmly to the left. And that's what I believe is needed. Politics does not function in absolute terms imo. My ideal society is closer to the scandinavian model than anything in the democratic agenda, but I am a pragmatist and like to spend time on what is possible. I'm also convinced that if you had given Obama complete free reigns to do absolutely what he wanted, you would have ended with a european style, social democratic country. But that was never remotely on the cards, and already, Obamacare or the financial reform were huge accomplishments in the right direction. I don't know that this vision can really hold because in this case we're always treating leftwing as a comparison. Obama is pushing the country to the left, okay, so Hillary Clinton is to the right of him, does that make her rightwing? But then again she's to the left of Trump, does that make her leftwing? If both of the candidates that are poised to succeed him are more rightwing than him, can we say that Obama has failed in pushing the country leftwing? We can also wonder if it was Obama's goal to push the country leftwing; if you're right that he is a social democrat, then definitely that was his goal. But if GH and I are right that he's a liberal, then there's no reason that he should want that, as liberalism doesn't have "moving the country to the left" as one of its goals, they have the status quo and even arguably the opposite goal, as it's much more comfortable for them to have a conservative opposition than a leftist opposition based on their ideology. Should this sort of analysis of ideology and intentions be included in the analysis?
Again I think politics is about what can be done, not about some grand vision of the Left or the Right.
I don't care that Obama is a liberal or a leftist deep down. He passed reforms that are part of a much more left wing vision of society, such as a universal health care, and that's what matters. We don't elect people to embody some kind of ideological purity, we elect them to change the life of people and budge the system in a certain direction. Obama did it towards the left, so in the US context, yes, he was a left wing president. And he would have gone much further had he not been constantly blocked by the GOP.
In that regard, considering that anyway the limit of his left leaning reform were exterior constraints and nor his will, it wouldn't have made a iota of difference if he had been much much more left wing leaning as a person, as he certainly wouldn't have accomplished anything else. What mattered was that he was good enough at his job to implement his reforms with all the constraints he had to face.
I suspect that same would have gone for Clinton and I sincerely doubt that Bernie or Clinton presidency would have had a much different outcome. Both of them would have had to battle insanely hard to pass a couple of key reforms in the spirit of Obamacare, and would have been stopped wayyyy short of their vision, be it a moderately social democratic centrism or Bernie socialist grand dream.
On December 31 2019 22:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No, just as people are tired of a certain poster spamming unelectable, unelectable, unelectable, or y'all on the right, over and over again, people are just tired of your spamming of democrats are evil, the institution is against the man, Obama is the worse thing ever, over and over again.
Last week when I last visited this thread we were having a nice conversation about the pro and cons of the establishment of the US space force, or the various alternative renewable energies and their viability in USA and nuclear physics and the operation of nuclear reactors, when it was hijacked to this yet again. And so instead of catching up to an interesting discussion, I find that I am reading GH vs the democrats yet again for the entire week. A week of this! 5 pages of this! It's ridiculous.
Yeah it's a complete waste of energy and time, but then again, just like with xDaunt, it's also that people answer (me included). GH has a grand total of one idea and one point (Trump is bad but the dems are just as evil!!!!) that he recycles in every single bit of discussion, it's not very interesting and we could just ignore it.
|
On January 01 2020 19:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Again I think politics is about what can be done, not about some grand vision of the Left or the Right.
I don't care that Obama is a liberal or a leftist deep down. He passed reforms that are part of a much more left wing vision of society, such as a universal health care, and that's what matters. We don't elect people to embody some kind of ideological purity, we elect them to change the life of people and budge the system in a certain direction. Obama did it towards the left, so in the US context, yes, he was a left wing president. And he would have gone much further had he not been constantly blocked by the GOP.
In that regard, considering that anyway the limit of his left leaning reform were exterior constraints and nor his will, it wouldn't have made a iota of difference if he had been much much more left wing leaning as a person, as he certainly wouldn't have accomplished anything else. What mattered was that he was good enough at his job to implement his reforms with all the constraints he had to face.
I suspect that same would have gone for Clinton and I sincerely doubt that Bernie or Clinton presidency would have had a much different outcome. Both of them would have had to battle insanely hard to pass a couple of key reforms in the spirit of Obamacare, and would have been stopped wayyyy short of their vision, be it a moderately social democratic centrism or Bernie socialist grand dream.
What you perceive as "what can be done" is influenced by the grand vision of the left and the right, and by the difference between liberalism and leftism. When your leftwing party runs to the center to be neoliberal and pushes the right further right so that it's now borderline fascist, what can be done is different than when you have a real leftist party on the left and a liberal party on the right. When you run as a leftist and then you staff your cabinet based 99% on what liberals want, the capacities and intentions of your cabinet will be different than that of a leftist cabinet. When you run as a leftist and then squander the good will that was given to you so much so that 1000 electoral seats turn to the opposing party, it influences what can be done by your administration outside of executive orders. It's also not just about you, as the political map that you leave behind will influence what the next representatives of the left can and cannot do.
The politics that you describe there are politics of capitulation. A politician can run on 95% of the right's platform, get elected, and that would be a victory for the left because the other politician was running on 100% of the right's platform. If you remove the ideas from the equation, there is no reason why those ideas would ever win. It would be bad political strategy for your ideas to win. That's not a good outlook.
|
On January 01 2020 19:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2020 00:18 Nebuchad wrote:On December 31 2019 18:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 31 2019 10:27 Nebuchad wrote:
One question that I never manage to have Biff or Velr answer is why they keep pretending that liberals are leftwing when they're from France/Norway and Switzerland. I've asked both of them several times but they always ignored it. Would be a non-repetitive topic to go into. I consider that left wing is what pushes a country to the left. Obama was left wing because his social programs, vision of society and reforms pushed America firmly to the left. And that's what I believe is needed. Politics does not function in absolute terms imo. My ideal society is closer to the scandinavian model than anything in the democratic agenda, but I am a pragmatist and like to spend time on what is possible. I'm also convinced that if you had given Obama complete free reigns to do absolutely what he wanted, you would have ended with a european style, social democratic country. But that was never remotely on the cards, and already, Obamacare or the financial reform were huge accomplishments in the right direction. I don't know that this vision can really hold because in this case we're always treating leftwing as a comparison. Obama is pushing the country to the left, okay, so Hillary Clinton is to the right of him, does that make her rightwing? But then again she's to the left of Trump, does that make her leftwing? If both of the candidates that are poised to succeed him are more rightwing than him, can we say that Obama has failed in pushing the country leftwing? We can also wonder if it was Obama's goal to push the country leftwing; if you're right that he is a social democrat, then definitely that was his goal. But if GH and I are right that he's a liberal, then there's no reason that he should want that, as liberalism doesn't have "moving the country to the left" as one of its goals, they have the status quo and even arguably the opposite goal, as it's much more comfortable for them to have a conservative opposition than a leftist opposition based on their ideology. Should this sort of analysis of ideology and intentions be included in the analysis? Again I think politics is about what can be done, not about some grand vision of the Left or the Right. I don't care that Obama is a liberal or a leftist deep down. He passed reforms that are part of a much more left wing vision of society, such as a universal health care, and that's what matters. We don't elect people to embody some kind of ideological purity, we elect them to change the life of people and budge the system in a certain direction. Obama did it towards the left, so in the US context, yes, he was a left wing president. And he would have gone much further had he not been constantly blocked by the GOP. In that regard, considering that anyway the limit of his left leaning reform were exterior constraints and nor his will, it wouldn't have made a iota of difference if he had been much much more left wing leaning as a person, as he certainly wouldn't have accomplished anything else. What mattered was that he was good enough at his job to implement his reforms with all the constraints he had to face. I suspect that same would have gone for Clinton and I sincerely doubt that Bernie or Clinton presidency would have had a much different outcome. Both of them would have had to battle insanely hard to pass a couple of key reforms in the spirit of Obamacare, and would have been stopped wayyyy short of their vision, be it a moderately social democratic centrism or Bernie socialist grand dream. Show nested quote +On December 31 2019 22:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No, just as people are tired of a certain poster spamming unelectable, unelectable, unelectable, or y'all on the right, over and over again, people are just tired of your spamming of democrats are evil, the institution is against the man, Obama is the worse thing ever, over and over again.
Last week when I last visited this thread we were having a nice conversation about the pro and cons of the establishment of the US space force, or the various alternative renewable energies and their viability in USA and nuclear physics and the operation of nuclear reactors, when it was hijacked to this yet again. And so instead of catching up to an interesting discussion, I find that I am reading GH vs the democrats yet again for the entire week. A week of this! 5 pages of this! It's ridiculous. Yeah it's a complete waste of energy and time, but then again, just like with xDaunt, it's also that people answer (me included). GH has a grand total of one idea and one point (Trump is bad but the dems are just as evil!!!!) that he recycles in every single bit of discussion, it's not very interesting and we could just ignore it.
for the umpteenth time.
I don't believe Trump and dems are "just as evil"
I don't say that so at least stop claiming it's my only argument when it's not even one of them.
Like holy shit... You guys say I have only one argument and never stop repeating it but you can't even get that single simple part right.
EDIT: Nebs also right you're describing a politics of capitulation. I'd add that Sanders isn't a socialist, he's the Social Democrat in public and policy your arguing Obama was behind the scenes. Obamacare was basically Nixoncare as well so not exactly "left" other than using this relativity where Republicans moving right for 40 years means advocating policy they used to support is now left wing.
|
words vs actions GH. People keep bringing it up because its practically guaranteed that you come into a discussion with the point that the Democrats also do X bad thing.
|
On January 01 2020 21:53 Gorsameth wrote:
words vs actions GH. People keep bringing it up because its practically guaranteed that you come into a discussion with the point that the Democrats also do X bad thing.
Repeat after me? Republicans are so bad there's room for Democrats to be better than them and still unacceptably bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
