US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1980

Prev 1 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 5125 Next

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

January 02 2020 18:27 GMT

#39581

--- Nuked ---

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom7084 Posts

January 02 2020 18:30 GMT

#39582

It helps not to follow GH's misuse of "liberalism" simply becuase he does it. Also helps to stop seeing things in terms of "left" and "right". They are not useful terms. You are overly concerned with your side winning whatever it is that the goals to be attained are no longer the topic of discussion, just that you want the left, whatever that means to you to win.

Nebuchad

Switzerland12172 Posts

January 02 2020 18:34 GMT

#39583

On January 03 2020 03:27 Gorsameth wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 03 2020 03:20 Nebuchad wrote:

On January 03 2020 02:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:

On January 02 2020 20:42 Nebuchad wrote:

On January 02 2020 18:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:

On January 02 2020 02:09 Nebuchad wrote:

On January 02 2020 01:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:

On January 01 2020 20:50 Nebuchad wrote:

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.

I don't see what is a politics of capitulation. All I want from a politician is that he leaves the country in a better state than when he gets into office.

At that point, Obama, Bernie or fucking Karl Marx in the White House would basically not achieve anything much different from each other. They would all push as hard as possible to pass left leaning reforms, and pass a fraction of them in an imperfect way. Which is great. It changes people's lives for the better.

I don't believe in those grand political ideals and care not about pursuing some fantasies of political purity and childish dreams about The Revolution.

And if Obama was elected in Norway and wanted to push the country right (he probably would), I would oppose him. But he did a stellar job as POTUS, and I would support anyone like him in that context.

Since we are at it, i prefer someone who doesn't sell cheap dreams of revolution to get elected. If Bernie wins, he will probably end up being a good president, pushing the country a bit to the left just as Obama did by fighting like a demon, but his supporters will be super pissed off and disillusioned because The Revolution will not have delivered. And that's not a good thing.

Obama is a contradictory figure in the framing that you give. He fights like a demon to get more leftwing stuff, he's doing basically the same as Bernie could, but if he was in Norway in another context, then he would push the country to the right and you'd fight against him?

If he wouldn't do everything he can when the deck is on his side, why would you assume that he's doing everything he can when the deck is stacked against him? Logically, he wouldn't. That's an issue, and that's why your framing of "purity" is factually wrong. Liberalism isn't impure leftism, it's a different ideology with different goals.

That's also where the capitulation comes in: we have a vision for society in the background, and we're giving up this vision because of pragmatism. But as we're giving up on our ideals being implemented, what's considered pragmatic changes, since less people are fighting on one side of the aisle and therefore the compromise position is no longer in the same place as it was when it comes to ideologies: it drifts to the right. And suddenly we don't care whether our champion is advancing liberalism or leftism, as long as we can tell ourselves they're improving the world. If we follow this logic we can even accept a quasi-conservative liberal like Biden as being good for the left, so long as the alternative candidate would have been worse. This pragmatic vision that is devoid of ideology is the kind of thought process that explains why the left keeps losing and the far right keeps strengthening, regardless of whether the nominally leftist candidate is in power or not.

American society is so far on the right that in the realm of the possible right now, liberals and leftists want exactly the same thing. The end goal might not be the exact same (even though I'm not even sure about that) but both liberals and leftists basically want the US to look a little bit more like Denmark.

Now we can debate whether or not we want a narrative to keep people fired up for elections about how we want to change the world radically. If you have good memory, that's what got Obama elected the first time (he was a bit the Bernie of 2008) and that costed him hugely when people realized he was only ever going to manage a universal healthcare, a cleanup of lobbyists in Washington, a comprehensive financial reform we could only dream of in the EU and a few other things instead of the socialist paradise they believed he would bring.

I don't care about that. If you want to talk about great ideals and political theory that never see the light of the day, that's fine. I want poor people who get cancer to be treated instead of dying at home with no help because they don't have an insurance. See, I believe that's what matters.

When it comes to Norway, what I meant is that the context, and therefore the range of possibilities is totally different. Instead of being wayyyyyy right of what american liberals want, the country is further on the left than them. Suddenly being liberal and left wing are two totally different things and the result of both in office will be different. Just as Macron would be a left wing wet dream in the US although in France he is centre right, Obama would be somewhere in the centre in Norway. Again. It's a question of context.

America is this place that is simultaneously so far to the right that leftists and liberals are undistinguishable, but also where a liberal thinks running as a leftist is a good strategy to get elected since Obama is the Bernie of 2008.

This America that you picture, it doesn't really make sense. If it was truly where the country was at, progressives would be running as liberals, not liberals as progressives. Basically everyone runs to the left of where they end up truly being, recent examples being Obama, Beto, Gillum, and even Trump. If you were there in 2016, I remember having arguments where people were telling me that Hillary Clinton was super progressive and that it was unfair that she was portrayed differently since her policies were competing with those of Bernie in terms of progressiveness.

"The end goal might not be the exact same (even though I'm not even sure about that)"

This sentence is the true issue imo. Of course the end goal is not the same. The ideal society of liberalism looks nothing like the ideal society of any leftist ideology. Liberalism wants a meritocracy, so that the people who deserve it/are the most capable get on top of society. Leftist ideologies fight against social hierarchies on a more fundamental level. This notion of top of society to get onto should be eroded.

What you perceive as anti-leftist sentiment in the US is in part antiliberal sentiment. It's not only that, of course, there's also a reaction against socialism that forces people to call themselves other stuff like "progressive", I understand that. But a cliche of american politics is talking about liberal elites and how they misunderstand and are disconnected from the people. That is a leftist framing, that's populism. It might not be willing to call itself leftwing, and I have no doubt that racism and bigotry will play enough of a part that a bunch of the people who talk about liberal elites will still vote for a liberal elite like Trump over Bernie, but still this sort of framing should be accounted for.

Macron would be Bill Clinton in the US. He's already happened.

Look we can keep bickering, it goes nowhere.

I want people to get a healthcare, affordable education and stuff like that, which are stuff both liberals and leftists are gonna try to achieve and neither are gonna fully succeed.

So I don't care whatsoever if the guy who will give those to the people has a blue or a pink t-shirt.

That's it.

I mean I questioned some of your fundamental assumptions about the US and whether liberalism and leftism have the same political goals, glad to know that we were just bickering to you. Shrug, and see you next time you'll say the same things.

His point is right tho, why does the specific leaning of a candidate matter when they policies move the country in the direction you want to go?
If you want universal healthcare it doesn't matter if its a Liberal, Left wing or Conservative that ends up implementing it. What matters is that they have a plan to implement that you agree with.
The closer to the goal you are the more the details start to matter but America is so far from socialism that any move in that direction, be it left wing or liberal is probably a good thing.

The version of universal health care that is consistent with liberal principles is different from the version that is consistent with leftist principles. It's privatized and operated for profit. Even accounting for compromises that you'll have to make the end result of an healthcare plan that starts from a leftist principle and one that starts from a liberal principle are noticeably different, see for the US medicare and Obamacare.

If you're fine either way then cool for you, but that's not the same as saying we have the same goals and different methods. And the general debate of leftwing vs liberal is not limited to what to do with healthcare, even though that's one of the more pressing issues in the US right now.

GreenHorizons

United States23221 Posts

January 02 2020 18:41 GMT

#39584

On January 03 2020 03:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It helps not to follow GH's misuse of "liberalism" simply becuase he does it. Also helps to stop seeing things in terms of "left" and "right". They are not useful terms. You are overly concerned with your side winning whatever it is that the goals to be attained are no longer the topic of discussion, just that you want the left, whatever that means to you to win.

This is like one step above constantly critiquing a poster's grammar (and being wrong about it) at this point.

Nebuchad

Switzerland12172 Posts

January 02 2020 18:43 GMT

#39585

GH uses liberalism correctly, he must live in your head that you think I'm using the terms in the same way because of his influence and not because that's how literally any socialist ever would use "liberal". Good post otherwise, surprised to see you agree with me on this.

farvacola

United States18825 Posts

January 02 2020 18:49 GMT

#39586

On January 03 2020 03:27 JimmiC wrote:

Show nested quote +

Is there a more misleading name for something than "citizens united".

Yeah, the case name is tragically contrapuntal lol

Nouar

France3270 Posts

January 02 2020 19:33 GMT

#39587

An article with the unredacted email exchanges between DOD and OMB about the hold on Ukraine aid.
Everything in this is appaling. The mail sent by Duffey around the end, completely reversing the burden and the fault to DOD after ignoring the issues raised to him for months, and more importantly, the very specific redactions made by Barr's team : everything related to the warnings DOD sent to OMB, and the potential legality of the hold were blacked out. For what reason ? None. Just DOJ being a full-on political hack, if anyone still had doubts.

example :

McCusker followed up in an email to OMB asking if this had gone through the Defense Department’s general counsel, indicating an early concern about the legality of these actions. When it released this email to the Center for Public Integrity, the Justice Department redacted this simple question from McCusker.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

ShambhalaWar

United States930 Posts

January 02 2020 20:48 GMT

#39588

On January 03 2020 00:50 Mohdoo wrote:
Bernie completely body slamming everyone else in fundraising. I signed up for repeating donations! GO BERNIE!

I did as well, last year... Go Bernie!

ShambhalaWar

United States930 Posts

January 02 2020 21:19 GMT

#39589

To all the people reading this forum who made protest votes or didn't vote, here's one of the many prices we all paid for you.

I hope people will be waving this in Susan collins face come election time, she deserves to lose the seat, despite being only one for two or three elected republicans who have a soul.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics/read-lawmakers-filing-to-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/index.html

Also, this is what trump's America has brought us... if you don't think "it could happen here" or hitler comparisons are hyperbolic... this one's for you.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/us/west-virginia-cadet-nazi-salute-fired-trnd/index.html

"All of the West Virginia correctional cadets seen apparently giving a Nazi salute will be fired, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice announced."

Xxio

Canada5565 Posts

January 02 2020 22:31 GMT

#39590

On January 03 2020 06:19 ShambhalaWar wrote:
To all the people reading this forum who made protest votes or didn't vote, here's one of the many prices we all paid for you.

I hope people will be waving this in Susan collins face come election time, she deserves to lose the seat, despite being only one for two or three elected republicans who have a soul.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics/read-lawmakers-filing-to-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/index.html

Also, this is what trump's America has brought us... if you don't think "it could happen here" or hitler comparisons are hyperbolic... this one's for you.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/politics/read-lawmakers-filing-to-supreme-court-roe-v-wade/index.html

"All of the West Virginia correctional cadets seen apparently giving a Nazi salute will be fired, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice announced."

I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases.

NewSunshine

United States5938 Posts

January 02 2020 22:39 GMT

#39591

On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:

Show nested quote +

That's authoritarian how, exactly? But more to the point, of course some on the left go too far and use violence. People on the far right do it too. It's unacceptable in any context. But since you mention it, I still get nauseous thinking about what happened in Charlottesville. Must we have that pointless back and forth again? Or worse, cape for actual Nazis?

Belisarius

Australia6230 Posts

January 02 2020 22:44 GMT

#39592

On January 02 2020 20:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
@ Beli Isn't your country on fire? You're like the RL "Everything is fine" meme

I kid, but I don't know if I'm getting sensationalized images or what but it looks scary af over there and hope you're safe. 2 degrees isn't happening even under Bernie, that ship has sailed.

For the record, I have never, ever, said this is fine.

Since you brought up Australia, there is a lesson here for the rest of the world.

Our centre-left parliament at the time tried to implement an ETS back in 2009. It would have passed, except our Green party voted against it because it wasn't severe enough for them, beginning a death spiral that has resulted in a decade of conservative rule.

Eleven years later, nothing has been passed, anywhere, and we are still having the same arguments about ideological purity while our country burns.

I do not care if it is good enough. Pass something. Or in your case, remove the idiot who will prevent anything ever being passed, and then pass something.

Aquanim

Australia2849 Posts

January 02 2020 22:50 GMT

#39593

On January 03 2020 07:44 Belisarius wrote:...
Since you brought up Australia, there is a lesson here for the rest of the world.

Our centre-left parliament at the time tried to implement an ETS back in 2009. It would have passed, except our Green party voted against it because it wasn't severe enough for them, beginning a death spiral that has resulted in a decade of conservative rule.

Eleven years later, nothing has been passed, anywhere, and we are still having the same arguments about ideological purity while our country burns.
...

Can confirm this is not an unreasonable summary.
+ Show Spoiler +

Technically a carbon tax was passed in 2011 by the minority government at the time but it was repealed by the conservatives when they got in around 2014 and nothing meaningful has been done since. The course of political events in general might have been very different had the original thing passed.

farvacola

United States18825 Posts

January 02 2020 23:01 GMT

#39594

On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:

Show nested quote +

At far-right political rallies throughout the United States, folks tout their support for Trump on white nationalist, ethnophobic grounds and threaten civil war if he is not reelected. The connection to authoritarianism is clear in that context, especially given the tie between the threat and the head of the nation.

How is that comparable to the scenario you've countered with? Please couch your answer in the meaning of the word "authoritarianism."

ShambhalaWar

United States930 Posts

January 02 2020 23:08 GMT

#39595

On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:

Show nested quote +

First, never in my entire life have I seen an article about an entire group of (any kind really, as long as I've been around) correctional cadets... police... all giving the nazi salute. It's no secret that in the last 3 years there has been a rise in hate crimes and anti-semitism in the US... The only thing that really changed is trump.

Legal pot didn't do this.

There have been reports that link a rise in hate crimes to the results of the 2016 election. Here are just a couple articles, google the topic, there's plenty to read... Or you can just live in the US and look at what is happening.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/opinion/trump-bds-movement-israel.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-jewish/anti-semitic-acts-spiked-since-trump-election-win-watchdog-says-idUSKBN17Q1ML

"Among 34 election-linked incidents cited by the ADL was graffiti posted in Denver in May 2016 that exhorted readers to “Kill the Jews, Vote Trump.”"

Does it not matter to you that people are praising those ideas, and killing people in trumps name? Actual anti-Semitic attacks where people have been killed have been committed in his name... He has done basically nothing... gives a fake ass speech.

Is that you're bias? "Meh, I'm ok with the nazi's... much more worried about left wing protests for healthcare."

What a bizarre response, and comparison...

Protest is legal, and in the US almost always non-violent.

Here is the link to the nazi article, I had linked the wrong one.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/us/west-virginia-cadet-nazi-salute-fired-trnd/index.html

And what a twisted disgrace things like this are... in WW2 this country actually fought for something to be proud of... maybe our finest moment. To see any part of ourselves become what we fought against in that war is disgusting.

Also, there is a strong need to recognize that this country was founded in mass genocide and slavery. It is the collective shadow of this country and we risk becoming that same thing when we forget that or pretend ... "Oh... the left is so dangerous with their protest in Portland where people talked about their feelings then went home and made dinner... somebody pls call the cops."

I can't even take this post seriously anymore... XD

Come on dude... are you for real? I'm getting trolled by a mod right?

Xxio

Canada5565 Posts

January 02 2020 23:27 GMT

#39596

On January 03 2020 08:01 farvacola wrote:

Show nested quote +

Threatening civil war is also bad. People who support Trump no matter what are like zombies. I don't think many are white nationalists. I take physical action more seriously, like the Charlottesville attack and this list of radical left activities. I'm sure there are many on the right too. I made this list because for some reason people here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good. The link to authoritarianism is obvious. I'm not going to write an essay.

Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.)

Nebuchad

Switzerland12172 Posts

January 02 2020 23:36 GMT

#39597

Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic.

GreenHorizons

United States23221 Posts

January 02 2020 23:40 GMT

#39598

On January 03 2020 08:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Kind of weird to bring up a topic and then forbid us from taking some positions on it. But this discussion has been had before and it's not really topical right now so I'm fine with ignoring this topic.

A strange game.
The only winning move is
not to play