|
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 18 2020 07:10 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
Which was the excuse for Arizona in 2016, but Nevada is run by Democrats.
EDIT: It varies from state to state, but as far as I can tell, Dem Nevada Caucuses (and the voter suppression we see there) are strictly the responsibility of Democrats.
|
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
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?
The NRA are an extremely effective organisation at fighting for their own particular cause, with a consistent effort even from the grass roots.
Others not so much, it’s a case of complaining whenever something bad happens, doesn’t last particularly long, there is no similarly effective ‘anti-NRA’, and that’s how things get done ultimately.
It’s why Bernie Sanders is doing what he’s doing, he’s got a core of support and a grass roots organisation that works year-round, not one that raises its head here and there.
Probably obvious I am not a fan of the NRA’s goals but as an advocacy group for a particular demographic they do do a very good job.
|
On February 17 2020 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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's incredible isn't it?
The people could be voting for Bloomberb because of the "D" next to his name will be voting for a billionaire ex-Republican.
The people who will be voting for Trump because of the "R" next to his name will be voting for a billionaire ex-Democrat.
They are probably literally laughing at us from their wine caves.
|
On February 18 2020 11:20 BerserkSword 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's incredible isn't it? The people could be voting for Bloomberb because of the "D" next to his name will be voting for a billionaire ex-Republican. The people who will be voting for Trump because of the "R" next to his name will be voting for a billionaire ex-Democrat. They are probably literally laughing at us from their wine caves.
Picture really is worth a 1000 words
+ Show Spoiler +
"It's a big club and you ain't in it" Admittedly, I'm a little jealous of their class consciousness/solidarity
|
On February 18 2020 08:15 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote: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? The NRA are an extremely effective organisation at fighting for their own particular cause, with a consistent effort even from the grass roots. Others not so much, it’s a case of complaining whenever something bad happens, doesn’t last particularly long, there is no similarly effective ‘anti-NRA’, and that’s how things get done ultimately. It’s why Bernie Sanders is doing what he’s doing, he’s got a core of support and a grass roots organisation that works year-round, not one that raises its head here and there. Probably obvious I am not a fan of the NRA’s goals but as an advocacy group for a particular demographic they do do a very good job.
I agree that mass politics is the only way to counter institutional power. But I don't think that is why they are able to thwart the will of an overwhelming majority of even their own their membership
|
Context: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/donald-trump-pardons/index.html
So apparently after the impeachment case, Donald is accelerating his usage of pardons to benefit his political allies. Is his usage of presidental pardons still within the norm (both in relation to quantity, and it's reasoning), or is this another disturbing development?
It definitely feels like Donald is signalling to all his allies that as long as Donald gets the appropriate kickback from their illegal activities, he'll keep them safe from the law.
I feel overturning the judiciary branch by pardoning allies, regardless of measure of guilt or caused / potential damage, to be far outside what is acceptable for a democratically elected leader. Separation of power is a core tenent of democracy, after all.
|
On February 19 2020 21:03 plated.rawr wrote:Context: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/donald-trump-pardons/index.htmlSo apparently after the impeachment case, Donald is accelerating his usage of pardons to benefit his political allies. Is his usage of presidental pardons still within the norm (both in relation to quantity, and it's reasoning), or is this another disturbing development? It definitely feels like Donald is signalling to all his allies that as long as Donald gets the appropriate kickback from their illegal activities, he'll keep them safe from the law. I feel overturning the judiciary branch by pardoning allies, regardless of measure of guilt or caused / potential damage, to be far outside what is acceptable for a democratically elected leader. Separation of power is a core tenent of democracy, after all.
This is another example of the legislative branch selling out to the executive.
|
The pardons/grants of clemency themselves aren't all that unusual, the people who are getting them from Trump most definitely are. He's probably gonna give clemency to Kwame Kilpatrick at this rate.
|
Weird. Maybe it isn't a good idea to allow the executive to overwrite the decisions of the judicative at will after all.
For a system that is so proud of it's checks and balances, yours sure does have a lot of obvious loopholes.
|
They're not loopholes, they're "norms" 
|
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On February 19 2020 21:03 plated.rawr wrote:Context: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/19/politics/donald-trump-pardons/index.htmlSo apparently after the impeachment case, Donald is accelerating his usage of pardons to benefit his political allies. Is his usage of presidental pardons still within the norm (both in relation to quantity, and it's reasoning), or is this another disturbing development? It definitely feels like Donald is signalling to all his allies that as long as Donald gets the appropriate kickback from their illegal activities, he'll keep them safe from the law. I feel overturning the judiciary branch by pardoning allies, regardless of measure of guilt or caused / potential damage, to be far outside what is acceptable for a democratically elected leader. Separation of power is a core tenent of democracy, after all.
There’s usually some I find absolutely questionable and I don’t really like the existence of the pardon in the first place.
Not sure how it compares numerically but basically every single one of these aren’t even questionable but blatantly corrupt applications.
The rhetoric around them tells you all you need to know, if one didn’t know already.
It’s rare enough that corruption actually gets prosecuted, then rarer still that people have to do time for it. I’m looking forward to a segment of his base still trying to argue about his swamp draining.
|
Northern Ireland27004 Posts
On February 19 2020 21:22 farvacola wrote:They're not loopholes, they're "norms"
I have a funny feeling if I took Donald Trump back in time to wine and dine with the Founding Fathers there might be a few hasty rewrites.
|
I wonder why Trump has a specific empathy for pardoning people selling political access, committing bribery, extortion, financial fraud and tax fraud.
|
Bloomberg's campaign is calling on other candidates to drop out and unite to stop Sanders.
Mike Bloomberg's campaign is sounding the alarm that Bernie Sanders will soon amass an unsurmountable delegate lead if the Democratic field stays split — and took the extraordinary step of suggesting laggards should drop out.
"If Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar remain in the race despite having no path to appreciably collecting delegates on Super Tuesday (and beyond), they will propel Sanders to a seemingly insurmountable delegate lead by siphoning votes away from [Bloomberg]."
www.axios.com
Will they listen to him?
|
Depends on how much money he (or someone else) is willing to give them probably. Even a losing race will get you a whole lot of name recognition. If you want to run for some other kind of office that can be very important.
|
You don't call people you want to bribe (and potential allies) to drop out in public. They're doing it to sow defeatism among Biden's, Buttigieg's and Klobuchar's supporters and present themselves as the only viable choice.
|
Buttigieg and Bloomberg are the only candidates I would actually choose to not vote for. Hoping Bloomberg doesn't succeed. He will get absolutely spanked in the debate tonight. I hope that's enough.
|
The dislike for Bloomberg among the Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, and Biden fans I know is pretty consistent, so it’ll be interesting to see how the split goes down if they must choose between Bloomberg and Sanders.
|
On February 20 2020 04:50 farvacola wrote:
The dislike for Bloomberg among the Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, and Biden fans I know is pretty consistent, so it’ll be interesting to see how the split goes down if they must choose between Bloomberg and Sanders.
The ones that pick Bloomberg are ashamed Republicans imo. Bloomberg would absolutely lose to Trump.
|
Dude hasn't done a single debate yet but he wants others to bow down to his power of cold hard cash. What an exciting prospect for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/YUpiwahfyfOhAxD3tFZCvHCiAHg=/415x307/top/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ZDN6GCWFVDEBYZOULFOCPPEFIA.jpg)
