| 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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43794 Posts
On February 12 2020 13:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The entire week of Iowa caucuses, I guess? Buttigieg + IDP + DNC screwed up incredibly badly, blatantly cheating and giving Buttigieg 3 of Sanders's delegates. To add more context, this list: ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RDOHSRs.png) | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4120 Posts
On February 12 2020 11:44 TentativePanda wrote: Before we get into the details, first explain why *many* other countries have implemented all of the above to great success but it would “ruin the economy” in the US Why hasn’t anybody mentioned that if you raise taxes on the rich and corporations, they could simply just move their money offshore. With the legal teams at their disposal it would be pretty easy. That’s how the rich stay rich. No way they are just gonna let the government increase their taxes without doing anything. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:43 Dante08 wrote: Why hasn’t anybody mentioned that if you raise taxes on the rich and corporations, they could simply just move their money offshore. With the legal teams at their disposal it would be pretty easy. That’s how the rich stay rich. No way they are just gonna let the government increase their taxes without doing anything. Because Bernie's plan also closes these loop holes for both the billionaires and the corporations they own. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8001 Posts
Bernie's strongest states may end up being some weird mix of diverse states like California and Texas, as well as rust belt states like Michigan/Wisc/Minnesota. People keep bringing up the idea that, "Well, if you combine all the moderate candidates, they make up like 75% of the vote!!!" which is very similar to the conventional wisdom regarding Trump in 2016. People are often low information, and don't necessarily subscribe to the ideological boxes of progressive and moderate. A Biden supporter very well may have Bernie as his #2 regardless of ideology. A lot of people just want to beat Trump, and will go to the flavor de jour to do it. If Sanders wins three of the first four states, and clobbers in California, it becomes easier to see the electability argument slanting in his favor. I do agree, however, that it is important for Bernie to have most of the moderates stick around for a couple more states, even into Super Tuesday. I would also imagine Bernie getting a Yang/Gabbard endorsement might help as well. No clue if it will happen, but Yang and Sanders are both "outsiders" who appeal to similar voters, and Yang has been complimentary of Bernie in the past. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4120 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:45 StasisField wrote: Because Bernie's plan also closes these loop holes for both the billionaires and the corporations they own. No plan is going to be full proof without massively screwing up regulation. Even if it were fool proof, some of the rich and corporations would simply move offshore permanently, there are tons of countries that would welcome their wealth with open arms. Everyone in the finance industry knows this. Bernie’s plan ultimately will involve raising taxes for the middle class and obviously he hasn’t stated this. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
The reason why the argument's logic doesn't really work is that it's true regardless of what billionnaires are doing. There is a point where your tolerance would break even if it means they could go elsewhere and do what they want, maybe if they were taking 99% of new profit in a year instead of 83% or whatever. Eventually you would break. With that argument you're essentially just saying that you haven't yet. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4120 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:56 Nebuchad wrote: The reason why we don't hear that argument about rich people leaving too often is because the establishment's argumentative strategy is still to try and pretend that capitalism is a good and desirable system, and "rich people have us hostage and that's why we can't have nice things" doesn't really help with that messaging. You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:53 Dante08 wrote: No plan is going to be full proof without massively screwing up regulation. Even if it were fool proof, some of the rich and corporations would simply move offshore permanently, there are tons of countries that would welcome their wealth with open arms. Everyone in the finance industry knows this. Bernie’s plan ultimately will involve raising taxes for the middle class and obviously he hasn’t stated this. Considering I have looked at his plans and they don't raise taxes on the middle class, I'll have to respectfully disagree. I guess we'll see what happens when he get's elected  | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On February 12 2020 14:48 darthfoley wrote: As a Bernie Bro (TM) I was a little disappointed that the margin of victory was so small, even understanding the bloated field. After I thought about it though, the fact that Sanders has won the popular vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire (primarily white electorates) proves that he can best moderates like Buttigieg/Biden/Klobuchar in demographics that are as good as they're gonna get, especially for Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Neither one have any minority support at the moment, and I'm skeptical that second or third in NH will change that trajectory going into Nevada and SC. Biden supposedly has his SC firewall, but with Sanders, Steyer and Bloomberg all pouring money into the markets there and Biden embarrassing himself in NH, I don't think that's a shoe in anymore. Bernie's strongest states may end up being some weird mix of diverse states like California and Texas, as well as rust belt states like Michigan/Wisc/Minnesota. People keep bringing up the idea that, "Well, if you combine all the moderate candidates, they make up like 75% of the vote!!!" which is very similar to the conventional wisdom regarding Trump in 2016. People are often low information, and don't necessarily subscribe to the ideological boxes of progressive and moderate. A Biden supporter very well may have Bernie as his #2 regardless of ideology. A lot of people just want to beat Trump, and will go to the flavor de jour to do it. If Sanders wins three of the first four states, and clobbers in California, it becomes easier to see the electability argument slanting in his favor. I do agree, however, that it is important for Bernie to have most of the moderates stick around for a couple more states, even into Super Tuesday. I would also imagine Bernie getting a Yang/Gabbard endorsement might help as well. No clue if it will happen, but Yang and Sanders are both "outsiders" who appeal to similar voters, and Yang has been complimentary of Bernie in the past. Results are pretty much what I expected to be honest. Bernie got around 26% and most polls ranged from 30% to 25% for Bernie. Buttigieg and Klobuchar over performed but after Biden's implosion, Pete grabbing a ton of air time by claiming an (unprovable) Iowa victory, and Klobuchar's good debate performance, at least one of them was bound to over perform. I think Bernie will perform much better in NV and SC where the minority vote plays a bigger role and that momentum will help him ride into Super Tuesday looking very strong. Bernie is doing very well in California and he is dumping a ton of resources into Texas (opening a Dallas office, Dallas rally on Friday, tons of Barnstorms happening now, etc), and those 2 states both bring a ton of delegates to the table. I am not going to outright call it now, but I will say I am feeling confident in Bernie's chances. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2715 Posts
On February 12 2020 06:24 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: This 10000000%. This has become an "us vs them" in regards to democratic voters and party affiliates. It's either Bernie or bust as said above, but the level of discourse as tanked to outright condescending tones and insults. I find it quite peculiar you would say that it has become "us vs them". The first thing that comes to my mind is: When was it not like that in the US? I spent a year in the US in `06-`07 and it most certainly already felt like "us vs them" was the most significant factor in voting preferences. I will never forget how my host brought me to the voting office when there were elections for senate/governor/etc (seemed like an endless list of elected positions back then. I couldn't say if it was 10 or 50, though) to teach me about American politics. He literally did not even read the names of the people up for office but simply went by party affiliation. I even asked him about a few particular people and why he chose them and he simply replied to me: "because they are from the X party". On a side note, I will also never forget that out of the countless positions he voted for without having any clue about the people he chose, there was one single exception of choosing an opposing candidate instead of the one from "his party" due to something like his "integrity" and "proven record" or whatever, but that's a bit besides the point. Obviously, I do not base my statement about "us vs them" on this single isolated example, though. While politics was not exactly a hot topic among high school seniors it came up every now and then and apparently voting preferences are a genetic predisposition in the US. I cannot count the times when I heard that somebody "is from a conservative/liberal family and that's why he/she supports that party", or that somebody told me "my family/we always vote conservative/liberal", but it certainly left a lasting impression on me. As if having your own opinion on politics was not only unnecessary but actually bad. And besides the inheritable property of political positions, I was stunned to witness the absolutely mind-numbing ignorance on any political topics by the overwhelming majority of people, which was in stark contrast to their unshakable political convictions. Asking somebody why he supports party X (never mind asking about a particular candidate) normally yielded an inability to name even 5 topics relating to that party. And even the topics that were being named and people felt strongly about often boiled down to some social topics that were just a tiny fraction of what the chosen party supports - not to mention objectively quite inconsequential about their own lives... Another reason why I felt like "us vs them" was already a thing back then is the concept of "swing states". This implies that there are other states where the outcome is predetermined no matter who the candidate for the opposing party is and what he supports. To me that is a perfect example of a "us vs them" mentality. From my experience in the US I can say that political leanings felt a whole lot like sport leanings - supporting one team without any reason other than "it is my team". And as far as "outright condescending tones and insults" are concerned, this was certainly already quite common in the political "discourse" back then in 2006. My host enjoyed listening to certain radio stations when driving, so I often had the questionable pleasure to listen to the triple combo of "talk" shows hosted by Limbaugh, Hannity and some other dude that quite honestly can only qualify as hate speech. Everything was centered around being condescending and offensive about everything that was said/done/considered by the democratic party. Most of the program was about shouting at hand-picked weird callers, insulting them and adding a couple of lines why the democratic party supported by such idiots is - in fact and without a doubt - shit. It is mind-boggling to me that somebody like Limbaugh can be socially acceptable given the fundamentally offensive nature of his shows, and he was by far the tamest of the three... | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8927 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:41 ggrrg wrote: I find it quite peculiar you would say that it has become "us vs them". The first thing that comes to my mind is: When was it not like that in the US? I spent a year in the US in `06-`07 and it most certainly already felt like "us vs them" was the most significant factor in voting preferences. I will never forget how my host brought me to the voting office when there were elections for senate/governor/etc (seemed like an endless list of elected positions back then. I couldn't say if it was 10 or 50, though) to teach me about American politics. He literally did not even read the names of the people up for office but simply went by party affiliation. I even asked him about a few particular people and why he chose them and he simply replied to me: "because they are from the X party". On a side note, I will also never forget that out of the countless positions he voted for without having any clue about the people he chose, there was one single exception of choosing an opposing candidate instead of the one from "his party" due to something like his "integrity" and "proven record" or whatever, but that's a bit besides the point. Obviously, I do not base my statement about "us vs them" on this single isolated example, though. While politics was not exactly a hot topic among high school seniors it came up every now and then and apparently voting preferences are a genetic predisposition in the US. I cannot count the times when I heard that somebody "is from a conservative/liberal family and that's why he/she supports that party", or that somebody told me "my family/we always vote conservative/liberal", but it certainly left a lasting impression on me. As if having your own opinion on politics was not only unnecessary but actually bad. And besides the inheritable property of political positions, I was stunned to witness the absolutely mind-numbing ignorance on any political topics by the overwhelming majority of people, which was in stark contrast to their unshakable political convictions. Asking somebody why he supports party X (never mind asking about a particular candidate) normally yielded an inability to name even 5 topics relating to that party. And even the topics that were being named and people felt strongly about often boiled down to some social topics that were just a tiny fraction of what the chosen party supports - not to mention objectively quite inconsequential about their own lives... Another reason why I felt like "us vs them" was already a thing back then is the concept of "swing states". This implies that there are other states where the outcome is predetermined no matter who the candidate for the opposing party is and what he supports. To me that is a perfect example of a "us vs them" mentality. From my experience in the US I can say that political leanings felt a whole lot like sport leanings - supporting one team without any reason other than "it is my team". And as far as "outright condescending tones and insults" are concerned, this was certainly already quite common in the political "discourse" back then in 2006. My host enjoyed listening to certain radio stations when driving, so I often had the questionable pleasure to listen to the triple combo of "talk" shows hosted by Limbaugh, Hannity and some other dude that quite honestly can only qualify as hate speech. Everything was centered around being condescending and offensive about everything that was said/done/considered by the democratic party. Most of the program was about shouting at hand-picked weird callers, insulting them and adding a couple of lines why the democratic party supported by such idiots is - in fact and without a doubt - shit. It is mind-boggling to me that somebody like Limbaugh can be socially acceptable given the fundamentally offensive nature of his shows, and he was by far the tamest of the three... When I wrote that, I didn't mean it to be left vs right. But Pro-Bernie vs Other Democrats. As you've mentioned this has always been the case when looking at the two parties broadly. And I can attest to what you claim is in fact true. My family did hardcore Democrat no matter what. Didn't matter what they talked about. I got lucky and actually paid attention when I grew up (around the time you were here visiting) and I picked certain politicians based on what they supposedly stood for or against. Not everyone takes a critical eye to these things. The funny part is listening to them bitch and moan when things go sideways because of the policies implemented by the people they chose to be in power. In regards to the tones, that was also specifically for this thread. It's mostly liberal/left political in here so a lot is roughly the same. It's when you get people who disagree fundamentally on topics or candidates that you get that condescending tone and unnecessary insults. I don't mind someone being called out for having the wrong facts. But to trash and insult them on an opinion that you could have just asked for some clarification gets you nowhere. Alienating possible allies is a bad thing (as has been stated before). But some posters here feel they are gatekeepers. Obviously it isn't the case for the majority, but in most aspects in life, it is the loud minority that gets the most attention. My whole point is what Nouar stated a few pages back. There's no need to jump on someone because they don't see things the same way or they raise a question that should be worth thinking about. Anyway, that's over and done with. Just thought I should reply to this. | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:41 ggrrg wrote: I find it quite peculiar you would say that it has become "us vs them". The first thing that comes to my mind is: When was it not like that in the US? I spent a year in the US in `06-`07 and it most certainly already felt like "us vs them" was the most significant factor in voting preferences. I will never forget how my host brought me to the voting office when there were elections for senate/governor/etc (seemed like an endless list of elected positions back then. I couldn't say if it was 10 or 50, though) to teach me about American politics. He literally did not even read the names of the people up for office but simply went by party affiliation. I even asked him about a few particular people and why he chose them and he simply replied to me: "because they are from the X party". On a side note, I will also never forget that out of the countless positions he voted for without having any clue about the people he chose, there was one single exception of choosing an opposing candidate instead of the one from "his party" due to something like his "integrity" and "proven record" or whatever, but that's a bit besides the point. Obviously, I do not base my statement about "us vs them" on this single isolated example, though. While politics was not exactly a hot topic among high school seniors it came up every now and then and apparently voting preferences are a genetic predisposition in the US. I cannot count the times when I heard that somebody "is from a conservative/liberal family and that's why he/she supports that party", or that somebody told me "my family/we always vote conservative/liberal", but it certainly left a lasting impression on me. As if having your own opinion on politics was not only unnecessary but actually bad. And besides the inheritable property of political positions, I was stunned to witness the absolutely mind-numbing ignorance on any political topics by the overwhelming majority of people, which was in stark contrast to their unshakable political convictions. Asking somebody why he supports party X (never mind asking about a particular candidate) normally yielded an inability to name even 5 topics relating to that party. And even the topics that were being named and people felt strongly about often boiled down to some social topics that were just a tiny fraction of what the chosen party supports - not to mention objectively quite inconsequential about their own lives... Another reason why I felt like "us vs them" was already a thing back then is the concept of "swing states". This implies that there are other states where the outcome is predetermined no matter who the candidate for the opposing party is and what he supports. To me that is a perfect example of a "us vs them" mentality. From my experience in the US I can say that political leanings felt a whole lot like sport leanings - supporting one team without any reason other than "it is my team". And as far as "outright condescending tones and insults" are concerned, this was certainly already quite common in the political "discourse" back then in 2006. My host enjoyed listening to certain radio stations when driving, so I often had the questionable pleasure to listen to the triple combo of "talk" shows hosted by Limbaugh, Hannity and some other dude that quite honestly can only qualify as hate speech. Everything was centered around being condescending and offensive about everything that was said/done/considered by the democratic party. Most of the program was about shouting at hand-picked weird callers, insulting them and adding a couple of lines why the democratic party supported by such idiots is - in fact and without a doubt - shit. It is mind-boggling to me that somebody like Limbaugh can be socially acceptable given the fundamentally offensive nature of his shows, and he was by far the tamest of the three... Yesterday at the radio, there was this famous French philosopher (Alain Badiou) who just published his new book called Trump. His idea was that that Trump (and several other democratically elected leaders) could come in power because most politics were now negative, against something, that there were no constructive propositions. And if we look back to Trump's campaign, it was against politic establishment, migrants, etc etc. It was all negative minus the mysterious, undefined "make America great again". Though Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom. The problem is supposedly opposed camps are in facts totally on the same page, as they agree on capitalistic-democracy, leaving no room for building new politics. Sorry if I'm unclear, it far exceeds my English capabilities and even in French I would struggle to properly explain his point. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7121 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:05 Dante08 wrote: You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. I dont think Id mind increased taxes given that when I had a job with healthcare in the US they were still charging me a shit ton every month for it. So overall, in my situation I doubt Id end up in a worse situation, it could very easily wind up slightly cheaper than UHC (fuck them, btw), or at the very least would almost assuredly provide MUCH better coverage. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4692 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:05 Dante08 wrote: You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. I dont think that is accurate, tax regime in various European countries are vastly different, for exmaple in Poland i pay 17% income tax below certain treshold and on income above that treshhold 32%. In total income tax + mandatory health insurance + mandatory retiremnt found adds up to about 37% i think. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9345 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:05 Dante08 wrote: You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. I was wondering why I pay 50% income tax lol Damn Europe and our communist governments. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21362 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:05 Dante08 wrote: Funny how in the money spend on healthcare per capita is lower in the EU then it is in the US. Maybe free healthcare isn't more expensive and the problem lies in how the US system works, and not the concept of universal healthcare.You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11331 Posts
On February 12 2020 13:49 Wegandi wrote: So you want to nationalize healthcare, post-secondary schooling, and massively increase taxes (if you want to emulate countries like Denmark you're going to have to increase middle class taxes from the 20-25% they are now to 50-55% like they are in Denmark, Netherlands, etc.), and then on top of that centrally plan the energy sector? Yeah, that's not socialism, but hey, guess not if you just write democracy around it. Would you vote for any of the democrat candidates over Trump? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23825 Posts
On February 12 2020 20:37 Jockmcplop wrote: I was wondering why I pay 50% income tax lol Damn Europe and our communist governments. I was wondering why I’m always broke! Places that tend to have those higher personal tax rates have more social programs than even a Bernie who gets his entire platform through, plus lower corporate taxation with it. I wasn’t present when Bevan and his boys formed the NHS over in the UK, I assume these kinds of arguments about cost and tax hikes were made then, but at least we were dealing with hypotheticals and a system that hadn’t really precedent in being implemented. Today various forms of nationalised healthcare exist all over the place and the data on costs and tax rates is pretty easily accessible. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 12 2020 15:05 Dante08 wrote: You can have nice things, but be prepared to pay the bulk for it compared to what the rich pays. You can’t have nice things and expect to pay the same taxes. You want free healthcare like Europe? Be prepared to pay 50% income tax. People are always scared of the "new taxes!" boogeyman, but the vast majority of people pay far more in monthly health insurance premiums than any tax increase would be. I pay over $200 per month for health insurance for my family, and that doesn't include our yearly per-person deductible. This is also really, really cheap. Most people pay several hundred dollars per pay check for health insurance, and if they don't, their deductible is several thousands of dollars (upwards of $5,000-$10,000). Any tax increase is almost guaranteed to save the middle class money by eliminating insurance premiums and deductibles. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Creator vs MaxPax
Rogue vs Creator
MaxPax vs Rogue
Spirit vs Creator
Spirit vs Rogue
Spirit vs MaxPax
Code For Giants Cup
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Jumy vs Zoun
Clem vs Jumy
ByuN vs Zoun
Clem vs Zoun
ByuN vs Jumy
ByuN vs Clem
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
SC Evo Complete
Classic vs uThermal
SOOP StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
