|
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 February 17 2020 09:26 Starlightsun wrote:
Wish the Democrats would stand up for the things they profess to be for and reject someone like Bloomberg from their party. I guess same holds with Trump and the Republicans. Sickening how we're given only two choices and they're both so shamelessly bought out. The Republicans tried hard to reject Trump. But anyone is free to run in the primary and the party actually has no real control over who run.
|
On February 17 2020 09:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. Having some decent polling recently hardly means that it's "Bloomberg vs. Sanders". Bloomberg has yet to even participate in a primary/caucus or a debate. Polls can change quite quickly. Look at Biden, Warren, and several candidates that have dropped out. This is a pretty early take and I honestly don't think Bloomberg has as good of a chance as you give him.
If I was basing it off polling (alone) you'd have a point. Their faltering was predictable, though the timing has been somewhat unexpected.
It's abundantly clear none of the candidates in the first 4 contests can beat Bernie nationally. His organization, grassroots fundraising, and long consistent record can't be beat by traditional means.
|
|
|
Canada8990 Posts
On February 17 2020 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 09:26 Starlightsun wrote:
Wish the Democrats would stand up for the things they profess to be for and reject someone like Bloomberg from their party. I guess same holds with Trump and the Republicans. Sickening how we're given only two choices and they're both so shamelessly bought out. The Republicans tried hard to reject Trump. But anyone is free to run in the primary and the party actually has no real control over who run.
I know they won't, but could they just quick him out of the party?
|
On February 17 2020 10:33 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:On February 17 2020 09:26 Starlightsun wrote:
Wish the Democrats would stand up for the things they profess to be for and reject someone like Bloomberg from their party. I guess same holds with Trump and the Republicans. Sickening how we're given only two choices and they're both so shamelessly bought out. The Republicans tried hard to reject Trump. But anyone is free to run in the primary and the party actually has no real control over who run. I know they won't, but could they just quick him out of the party?
In a two party system you can't do that or you hand over power for a generation to your opponents. The base beneath them will turn their backs and they'll be working from a 30-40 split on the country instead of the 40-40 we have today
On a pure technical level no you can't
|
If Bernie, who rejected and was not even a member of the democratic party could and can run (which i think is a good thing btw), there is no reason why someone like Bloomberg shouldn't. It's a great thing you can run as an outsider, or that the party doesn't decide who can and can't run. That being said, of course, the price to pay is that you can expect to have the party's apparatus against you (which happened to both Trump and Sanders in '16).
|
On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in.
Totally like China: no separation of powers, no independent justice, no opposition newspapers, criticizing the power lands you in jail, there are no elections and you can expect the president to be there for life, the internet is censored; without talking of the soviet style repression of minorities.
I know it's fashionable to throw terms like "oligarchs" these days, but the US has very little if anything in common with an oligarchy. It's a rather shit and broken democracy, we agree on that, but ffs, it has NOTHING to do with China whatsoever.
|
On February 17 2020 10:33 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 09:46 Gorsameth wrote:On February 17 2020 09:26 Starlightsun wrote:
Wish the Democrats would stand up for the things they profess to be for and reject someone like Bloomberg from their party. I guess same holds with Trump and the Republicans. Sickening how we're given only two choices and they're both so shamelessly bought out. The Republicans tried hard to reject Trump. But anyone is free to run in the primary and the party actually has no real control over who run. I know they won't, but could they just quick him out of the party? I assume you mean kick out?
Again, you don't need to be a part of the party to run in the primary for that party. Bernie for example isn't part of the Democratic party either, but he is still able to run for their spot.
Heck I think technically Mitch McConnell could try to run for the Democratic candidate spot if he wanted to.
|
On February 17 2020 18:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in. Totally like China: no separation of powers, no independent justice, no opposition newspapers, criticizing the power lands you in jail, there are no elections and you can expect the president to be there for life, the internet is censored; without talking of the soviet style repression of minorities. I know it's fashionable to throw terms like "oligarchs" these days, but the US has very little if anything in common with an oligarchy. It's a rather shit and broken democracy, we agree on that, but ffs, it has NOTHING to do with China whatsoever.
Oligarchy - “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.”
Control (noun) - “the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events”.
Are you arguing that a relatively small group of people don’t have oversized power to influence and/or direct people’s behavior or events in regards to the US government? Given Citizens United, lobbyists, and the way money works in US elections, I feel like that’s going to be a difficult argument to make.
IMO there’s always been an oligarchy, what’s changed is the extent to which it’s been made obvious and the degree of how OK people are with it.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On February 17 2020 22:11 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 18:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in. Totally like China: no separation of powers, no independent justice, no opposition newspapers, criticizing the power lands you in jail, there are no elections and you can expect the president to be there for life, the internet is censored; without talking of the soviet style repression of minorities. I know it's fashionable to throw terms like "oligarchs" these days, but the US has very little if anything in common with an oligarchy. It's a rather shit and broken democracy, we agree on that, but ffs, it has NOTHING to do with China whatsoever. Oligarchy - “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.” Control (noun) - “the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events”. Are you arguing that a relatively small group of people don’t have oversized power to influence and/or direct people’s behavior or events in regards to the US government? Given Citizens United, lobbyists, and the way money works in US elections, I feel like that’s going to be a difficult argument to make. IMO there’s always been an oligarchy, what’s changed is the extent to which it’s been made obvious and the degree of how OK people are with it.
Oh they definitely do but it’s abstracted from people to corporations, who are also apparently people somehow.
It’s still pretty awful, but it’s not quite like the kind of straight-up control the oligarch class can wield elsewhere. It’s a bit less static in the US, you’ve got to keep lobbying and scratching backs.
Perhaps simply because there are more billionaires in somewhere like the US it doesn’t buy you that access long term unless you keep engaging.
|
On February 17 2020 22:11 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 18:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in. Totally like China: no separation of powers, no independent justice, no opposition newspapers, criticizing the power lands you in jail, there are no elections and you can expect the president to be there for life, the internet is censored; without talking of the soviet style repression of minorities. I know it's fashionable to throw terms like "oligarchs" these days, but the US has very little if anything in common with an oligarchy. It's a rather shit and broken democracy, we agree on that, but ffs, it has NOTHING to do with China whatsoever. Oligarchy - “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.” Control (noun) - “the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events”. Are you arguing that a relatively small group of people don’t have oversized power to influence and/or direct people’s behavior or events in regards to the US government? Given Citizens United, lobbyists, and the way money works in US elections, I feel like that’s going to be a difficult argument to make. IMO there’s always been an oligarchy, what’s changed is the extent to which it’s been made obvious and the degree of how OK people are with it.
By that definition, every democracy is an oligarchy, because the elected officials are definitely a small group of people that have control over the country.
|
|
|
On February 17 2020 23:10 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 22:11 Ryzel wrote:On February 17 2020 18:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 17 2020 10:01 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 17 2020 09:03 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 17 2020 08:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
Bloomberg is such an awful person, let alone politician, it is really fascinating to see Democrats contort themselves to deal with the increasingly apparent reality that it is him or Sanders getting the Dem nomination. But he can beat Trump, apparently. No he’s fucking awful, fuck him. I’m not even sure why he’s running, Horrendous candidate and tbh even Trump’s puerile insults might actually land when it comes to Bloomberg anyway. I’d honestly rather Trump win than a Bloomberg. That's the beauty of it. If Bloomberg wins the nomination (or they just give it to him as they argued in court they can) it is a win-win election for the oligarchs/plutocracy. It will make the states a lot more like China where the oligarch's are just the politicians. Then all they need is to do away with peoples rights, free speech, control all the media and they will be all the way there. Scary times we live in. Totally like China: no separation of powers, no independent justice, no opposition newspapers, criticizing the power lands you in jail, there are no elections and you can expect the president to be there for life, the internet is censored; without talking of the soviet style repression of minorities. I know it's fashionable to throw terms like "oligarchs" these days, but the US has very little if anything in common with an oligarchy. It's a rather shit and broken democracy, we agree on that, but ffs, it has NOTHING to do with China whatsoever. Oligarchy - “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.” Control (noun) - “the power to influence or direct people’s behavior or the course of events”. Are you arguing that a relatively small group of people don’t have oversized power to influence and/or direct people’s behavior or events in regards to the US government? Given Citizens United, lobbyists, and the way money works in US elections, I feel like that’s going to be a difficult argument to make. IMO there’s always been an oligarchy, what’s changed is the extent to which it’s been made obvious and the degree of how OK people are with it. By that definition, every democracy is an oligarchy, because the elected officials are definitely a small group of people that have control over the country.
The distinction that is made usually refers to how much of what the people want is implemented vs how much of what the donor class wants is implemented, and also how much weight the people's opinions have over said implementation.
Biff's overall point that it's different from China is correct of course but I wouldn't agree that this is far from an oligarchy, seems either right on the money or at least pretty close.
|
If you use your own definitions, then sure, in the end everything is the way you say it is. It's certainly true, that the American democracy gives a lot of power to the rich, compared to other democracies. That is it, though. Being pedantic about it doesn't help either though, so call it what you want.  but be aware that your democracy is just as robust as you perceive it to be and if the progressives all call it an oligarchy because they don't like "their" candidate, it's not that different then the conservatives calling it communist if the progressives win.
All that said, I hope you get Bernie or another candidate with socially positive policies in the white house.
|
Early voting has been underway in Nevada, voters reported waiting as long as 3 1/2-4 hours to vote with lines like this more than hour after voting was supposed to be done.
|
On February 18 2020 01:05 Broetchenholer wrote:If you use your own definitions, then sure, in the end everything is the way you say it is. It's certainly true, that the American democracy gives a lot of power to the rich, compared to other democracies. That is it, though. Being pedantic about it doesn't help either though, so call it what you want. but be aware that your democracy is just as robust as you perceive it to be and if the progressives all call it an oligarchy because they don't like "their" candidate, it's not that different then the conservatives calling it communist if the progressives win. All that said, I hope you get Bernie or another candidate with socially positive policies in the white house.
I'm not trying to give you a different definition though ^^' just the perspective with which it makes sense to say that. There is small group of people that is dominant and it has accrued power mostly based on money. We can distinguish between institutional oligarchy and de facto oligarchy, perhaps.
|
Northern Ireland27271 Posts
On February 18 2020 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 01:05 Broetchenholer wrote:If you use your own definitions, then sure, in the end everything is the way you say it is. It's certainly true, that the American democracy gives a lot of power to the rich, compared to other democracies. That is it, though. Being pedantic about it doesn't help either though, so call it what you want. but be aware that your democracy is just as robust as you perceive it to be and if the progressives all call it an oligarchy because they don't like "their" candidate, it's not that different then the conservatives calling it communist if the progressives win. All that said, I hope you get Bernie or another candidate with socially positive policies in the white house. I'm not trying to give you a different definition though ^^' just the perspective with which it makes sense to say that. There is small group of people that is dominant and it has accrued power mostly based on money. We can distinguish between institutional oligarchy and de facto oligarchy, perhaps.
Indeed, it’s not the biggest distinction in the world but still one worth making just for the ease of communication of ideas at least.
Using money to influence both the wider populace and institutions is far from desirable, but it is still a step removed from outright having your will enacted by state apparatus.
|
|
|
On February 18 2020 02:09 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2020 01:05 Broetchenholer wrote:If you use your own definitions, then sure, in the end everything is the way you say it is. It's certainly true, that the American democracy gives a lot of power to the rich, compared to other democracies. That is it, though. Being pedantic about it doesn't help either though, so call it what you want. but be aware that your democracy is just as robust as you perceive it to be and if the progressives all call it an oligarchy because they don't like "their" candidate, it's not that different then the conservatives calling it communist if the progressives win. All that said, I hope you get Bernie or another candidate with socially positive policies in the white house. I'm not trying to give you a different definition though ^^' just the perspective with which it makes sense to say that. There is small group of people that is dominant and it has accrued power mostly based on money. We can distinguish between institutional oligarchy and de facto oligarchy, perhaps. Indeed, it’s not the biggest distinction in the world but still one worth making just for the ease of communication of ideas at least. Using money to influence both the wider populace and institutions is far from desirable, but it is still a step removed from outright having your will enacted by state apparatus.
Lets look at the NRA, how is it despite overwhelming support for gun regulation they manage to prevent the legislation from being written/signed? Even under Obama and a 60 vote senate majority or after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered.
I have a feeling most people will blame Republicans, like they would for voter suppression still being a thing despite the example of Nevada in a Democrat run election showing 3-4 hour lines.
I'm curious if people no longer think Russia and China are dictatorships, and instead are oligarchies? Or are they under the impression they are the same thing/interchangeable?
|
On February 18 2020 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 02:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 18 2020 01:43 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2020 01:05 Broetchenholer wrote:If you use your own definitions, then sure, in the end everything is the way you say it is. It's certainly true, that the American democracy gives a lot of power to the rich, compared to other democracies. That is it, though. Being pedantic about it doesn't help either though, so call it what you want. but be aware that your democracy is just as robust as you perceive it to be and if the progressives all call it an oligarchy because they don't like "their" candidate, it's not that different then the conservatives calling it communist if the progressives win. All that said, I hope you get Bernie or another candidate with socially positive policies in the white house. I'm not trying to give you a different definition though ^^' just the perspective with which it makes sense to say that. There is small group of people that is dominant and it has accrued power mostly based on money. We can distinguish between institutional oligarchy and de facto oligarchy, perhaps. Indeed, it’s not the biggest distinction in the world but still one worth making just for the ease of communication of ideas at least. Using money to influence both the wider populace and institutions is far from desirable, but it is still a step removed from outright having your will enacted by state apparatus. Lets look at the NRA, how is it despite overwhelming support for gun regulation they manage to prevent the legislation from being written/signed? Even under Obama and a 60 vote senate majority or after a bunch of elementary school children were murdered. I have a feeling most people will blame Republicans, like they would for voter suppression still being a thing despite the example of Nevada in a Democrat run election showing 3-4 hour lines. I'm curious if people no longer think Russia and China are dictatorships, and instead are oligarchies? Or are they under the impression they are the same thing/interchangeable?
3-4 hour lines is voter suppression. There is a cost, your time has value and not everyone can afford 3-4 hours.
Also Polling places and times are determined by state boards not the individual parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
