EPTEven if the primaries get ugly, I can't see Democratic voters wanting Trump over ANY of the Dem candidates after 4 years of his crap. That's my hope at least. Whatever mistakes they commit in their campaigns is small beans compared to the devastating policies of the Trump administration.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2024
| 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 | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
Even if the primaries get ugly, I can't see Democratic voters wanting Trump over ANY of the Dem candidates after 4 years of his crap. That's my hope at least. Whatever mistakes they commit in their campaigns is small beans compared to the devastating policies of the Trump administration. | ||
|
Vivax
21952 Posts
If it's the US who has an edge over the Chinese like Trump is spouting all the time, why is the deal written in Chinese and has to be translated? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 15 2020 04:30 Starlightsun wrote: Even if the primaries get ugly, I can't see Democratic voters wanting Trump over ANY of the Dem candidates after 4 years of his crap. That's my hope at least. Whatever mistakes they commit in their campaigns is small beans compared to the devastating policies of the Trump administration. I’d venture to say that for an overwhelming majority of Americans their lives have not appreciably changed at all, or even have gotten better, since 2016. If you surveyed a hypothetical population of Americans who stayed away from “news” over the last 3+ years I doubt many would have complaints that Trump was making their lives worse. The major pollution for most has been “merely” the corruption and debasement of public discourse. This is not to say that Trump (or any President) hasn’t harmed anyone, just to say that for a large majority of 350M Americans (or whatever the new census reveals) they probably don’t notice any real differences in their day to day, and that many of the minority who might have real grievances would be offset by those who think the economy has improved or who have obtained whatever other advantages might have flowed to them. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On January 15 2020 06:48 IgnE wrote: I’d venture to say that for an overwhelming majority of Americans their lives have not appreciably changed at all, or even have gotten better, since 2016. If you surveyed a hypothetical population of Americans who stayed away from “news” over the last 3+ years I doubt many would have complaints that Trump was making their lives worse. The major pollution for most has been “merely” the corruption and debasement of public discourse. This is not to say that Trump (or any President) hasn’t harmed anyone, just to say that for a large majority of 350M Americans (or whatever the new census reveals) they probably don’t notice any real differences in their day to day, and that many of the minority who might have real grievances would be offset by those who think the economy has improved or who have obtained whatever other advantages might have flowed to them. Things take time. Improving the economy takes time. Destroying the country takes time. The debt/Deficit incurred these past few years is going to be felt in decades, possibly after Trump's death. Destroying environmental regulations is going to poison the soils and air slowly, it will be felt after a few dozen years. This administration is doing everything it can to turboboost the economy, short-term, at all costs, doesn't care about what will happen in the future. They are only thinking "best case". The effects of this boost are probably just delaying the regular cycle and keeping the economy on the course it had since 2010... for now. How long ? The next president will deal with the aftermath, after Obama dealt with the aftermath of the subprime crisis. Doing everything you can to stop illegal immigration (low-cost labor) can have long term effects, both good and bad. The long-term include small harvesting companies going under because they can't find labour at the usual price, meaning their prices shoot up, and they go down (possibly bought by bigger ones). Seasonal workers mostly. It can also lead to a shortage in workers, meaning the economy stops growing. Or it could increase the overall wages and quality of jobs (still waiting). In any case, this takes years. So no, people will not have seen the difference. In 10years, you might be able to pinpoint the root cause for X and Y and trace it to a president's decisions. Probably not before. (except tax breaks for large companies. Dividends go up FAST :-) ). States also have a lot of power in the US, so even things like LGBT rights did not change much, except in federal places like the army. Same for the stuffing of conservative judges in federal courts, the decisions will take years to build up and take effect. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
So how many people live in that state? Roundabout 3.4 Million. So 1% of the population. Doesn't sound like nobody to me. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
It does work against Trump as well. You can’t stoke anti-immigrant sentiment in such a hypothetical scenario, bar perhaps those who live in certain areas. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On January 15 2020 07:53 Artisreal wrote: I'd like to add that it's rather probable that Clinton or Bernie Sanders would have helped the Puerto Rican Citizens. So how many people live in that state? Roundabout 3.4 Million. So 1% of the population. Doesn't sound like nobody to me. That's the 'nice thing' about Puerto Rico, they don't have congressional or presidential voting rights so you can safely fuck them over. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 15 2020 08:04 Wombat_NI wrote: The abstract economy really doesn’t matter to a lot of people, at least in any way they can see in their day-to-day if we’re going with people living in a news blackout. It does work against Trump as well. You can’t stoke anti-immigrant sentiment in such a hypothetical scenario, bar perhaps those who live in certain areas. i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
On January 15 2020 08:41 IgnE wrote: i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage There are numerous reasons to conclude the opposite, that things are bad and getting worse for a significant number of people across the shrinking middle class and lower class. 7 year car loans are being given regularly, the high risk personal loan market is booming without much check in sight, and iirc at least some measures of mobility suggest that shifting between classes is harder now than it has been decades. Real wage growth, especially when it takes student loan debt into account and sets off the inflationary effect of benefits-as-income, is fairly bad and has been for a while now. Conservative economic think tanks think they’ve got a good argument when they insist that any measure of real wages must include face value benefits numbers, which evens out the difference between productivity and wage gains, but this tack totally fails to address the economic impact of paying workers in benefits instead of cash. That impact includes what I like to call a “race to the top” problem in which the benefits industry, primarily health insurance, is encouraged to seek high rents from employer funded sources, which then leads to inflated provider prices that push out from the market many of the folks who need health insurance where an employer is not involved. All of this is to say that economic intuitions point in contradicting directions at present  | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States763 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 15 2020 01:41 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so why do you think it is that you're immediately jumping on a leftist who expresses strong preference for Bernie, but you'd never see a Biden supporter and think "there's a decent chance that they'd vote for Trump if Sanders won, I should call them out on this"? I'd be curious how many people here have actually met a Biden supporter to say that to. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 15 2020 08:41 IgnE wrote: i am talking about low unemployment and slight real wage growth. as much as people against trump would not like to admit it, the economy is doing well for more people than not. and regardless of whether or not trump is responsible, a good economy adds to a large incumbent advantage I’ll happily admit the wider economy, whatever that may mean is doing well under Trump, and that does tend to be an advantage. I can’t really speak to the American example, over here the main gripe is a lack of stable guaranteed hours and that getting on the property ladder is increasingly remote for many people. Although as far as I’m aware it’s less out of reach in the States. You might not be unemployed sure but you have no security either and you might work 40 hours one week and 5 the next. Makes it rather difficult to plan for the future. The economy in the abstract might be doing well, but how’s it working for individual people? I have rather a lot of friends, and am 30 now. I’m fucked because health issues but that aside I know 3 people (all of whom are couples, all of whom have at least one person earning 40k a year) who have bought a house. By this stage most of the generation above us had done so. So I mean the economy is ‘doing well’ but for whom? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15477 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23006 Posts
On January 15 2020 09:59 Mohdoo wrote: If Warren attacks Bernie as sexist during the debate, I'm turning it off and completely tuning out anything politics related until Iowa votes. It will just be too stressful for me otherwise. It played poorly, a bunch of people asked for refunds for their donations to her campaign, and now she's trying to pretend it didn't happen or she couldn't have squashed it. She doesn't want to have it come up and they've actually been telling their online supporters to stop doing that because it will devastate their campaign. CNN won't let her off that easy. They are eating it for running hearsay stories that reek of tabloid drama so they want to push the heat of that on to her fully. | ||
|
TentativePanda
United States800 Posts
On January 15 2020 10:06 GreenHorizons wrote: It played poorly, a bunch of people asked for refunds for their donations to her campaign, and now she's trying to pretend it didn't happen or she couldn't have squashed it. She doesn't want to have it come up and they've actually been telling their online supporters to stop doing that because it will devastate their campaign. CNN won't let her off that easy. They are eating it for running hearsay stories that reek of tabloid drama so they want to push the heat of that on to her fully. Yeah the danger here is 1) The slight damage it already caused for them both and 2) CNN and Klobuchar ruining it for them further. And I'm with you, seeing Bernie get sabotaged in real time is gonna give me awful anxiety. Bernie's campaign can handle a lot more heat than any other candidates, since his supporters are those who see the bullshit the media pulls over peoples heads | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
I wouldn't be surprised if the drama isn't really touched on though and both camps come out of the gate with some sort of "we have our differences but let's be stronger together blah blah", then Klobuchar proceeds to get critical first hour air time and everyone decides they'd rather catch a hockey game. It is the narrowest group yet though. If there's a time for an epic Biden flameout it's now. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23006 Posts
On January 15 2020 10:51 Gorgonoth wrote: And the bottom line with there being any press at all between Bernie and Warren is of course, this is very good for Joe Biden. I wouldn't be surprised if the drama isn't really touched on though and both camps come out of the gate with some sort of "we have our differences but let's be stronger together blah blah", then Klobuchar proceeds to get critical first hour air time and everyone decides they'd rather catch a hockey game. It is the narrowest group yet though. If there's a time for an epic Biden flameout it's now. Biden's queued up to get flamed for supporting Social Security cuts which might actually have a noticeable impact if they can get to it in the first half hour or so. Otherwise this will just be the last debate where people thought Warren had a shred of a chance. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44052 Posts
On January 15 2020 10:19 TentativePanda wrote: Yeah the danger here is 1) The slight damage it already caused for them both and 2) CNN and Klobuchar ruining it for them further. And I'm with you, seeing Bernie get sabotaged in real time is gonna give me awful anxiety. Bernie's campaign can handle a lot more heat than any other candidates, since his supporters are those who see the bullshit the media pulls over peoples heads I expect the drama to be brought up by either a moderator or a candidate, which can go one of two ways: a. Sanders and Warren end up not being 100% unified for once on the debate stage, although both of them have expertly fended off centrist attacks and attempts at pitting them against each other in the past; b. Sanders and Warren quickly acknowledge the drama as a misunderstanding, state their friendship and political visions as more important to focus on, and escape relatively unscathed. | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
Good opening from Bernie on that because it shows integrity of his political position, which in a weird way, I think some people value even more than being aligned ideologically for better or worse. | ||
| ||
