|
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 |
Norway28598 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words.
If Trump is 100% right and I'm 100% left and Obama is in the middle then I get more than 0% of what I want from Obama.
Anyway I mean, I think FTPT is terrible, just like simberto, and I think a 2 party system sucks as well. But I also believe in making the best of what you have. I don't think not voting does much of anything. At worst it confirms that your particular group of voters is unreliable and thus should not be catered towards. (Unlike old people. )
|
He is something like 50-60% better in terms of liberal vs conservative. There's no difference in terms of capitalism vs socialism. Actually it's probably worse for socialism cause his win means the left will have to defend status quo liberalism with moderate republican characteristics in 2024.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:04 Nakajin wrote:
IDK if the 2000 Bush-Gore thing as much to do with ideology or wanting to avoid conflict, I certainly don't think Hillary would have gone down without a fight in a similar situation and she's as white moderate/neolib as it get.
It come down to such split second decision in these kind of situation, it's really more about political posturing and corridors agreement, because once the TV station and official announce the winner it's pretty much over and every minute that pass make's it harder and harder to overturn the legitimacy claim of the new president and then obviously the supreme court thing happened and at this point it's pretty much over outside of a putsch kind of operation.
I think we can all agree Gore did a shitty job at playing his card, IDK if it's because he didn't want to fight, and I certainly don't think it has much to do with ideology, pure selfishness do the job just as well at that point.
Could mass protest have change the outcome? Probably not, it was most likely already to late at this point, it certainly didn't affect Trump claim on the presidency for a second, but if Gore had thought he could garner street support behind him as a way to win the presidency he probably would have. I mean the letter is long so my excerpt doesn't cover it all but it's not just literal in the sense of "moderate" politically, but speaks to motivation behind the selfishness. It means that they'll sacrifice (in Gore's case, countless Iraqi lives among much more) those that will suffer for their own personal comfort. The idea that the system that oppresses those people could collapse and bring them with it threatens them more than perpetuating the suffering under the status quo (or a marginally better/worse version).
Hum yea for sure, but I was talking more about the Gore situation itself, it's a very hard call to make for him.
The flip side of the situation right now would probably be Catalonia, the nationalist decided to go forward against the judiciary and legislative authority of Madrid and tried to play the popular and street support against it with a referendum on independence. And in the end despite being in a liberal democracy the army swept in, the local police and potential international allies didn't stand behind them, the leaders and nationalist were incarcerated in masses and the Prime Minister elected had to flew the country with an international arrest mandate on his head and within a week it was pretty much all over and the status quo was back.
Now we can say it clearly demonstrated the nature of the Spanish system and we can't blame Pudgimont and company to have scarified their idea for their comfort, but maybe wasn't the best way to actually advance their project and the well being of their supporter.
I'm way more mad at the thousand of little compromise these kind of neoliberal politician made everyday to keep everything in place than and stay in power than I am at how they act during those crisis turning point.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think Biden is 0.01% better than Trump lol, I think he's approximately 94.35% better. So I entirely disagree with the premise. If people think he's virtually identical then whatever, but I really don't see how they are. That argument would resonate far better with me in a Hillary vs Jeb election than a Trump vs Biden one.
Could see it for Trump vs Bloomberg tho.
I suppose it depends on what metrics you use. In terms of policy, Trump has hardly differed much from the standard Bush-style conservative approach. Where he has differed, it's mostly been things like scrapping trade deals, which for the most part is a large net positive. He certainly does come off as far more of a clown than your average candidate, but I hope that's not the supposed difference between him and someone like Jeb. And I certainly doubt you meant that Clinton and Biden are significantly different candidates, because they hardly seem to be in any meaningful sense.
I'm struggling to really see what materially different things Biden is supposedly going to do that are to be cheered on. He's notionally going to be more supportive of left-leaning things like climate policy, taxing the wealthy, and civil rights, but with the exception of perhaps the latter it's mostly going to indeed just be notional. Hardly a resounding win to be cheering on - or, in fact, a deep motivator for people who actually care about these issues to be desperate to replace Trump with this other highly questionable candidate for.
Frankly the argument seems to be "we need to defeat Trump at all costs" among the rank-and-file Democrats. To what end, of course, is never particularly well explained. Stop Trump now, figure out why it was such a big deal to do so later.
|
United States13816 Posts
I was listening to a podcast where it talked about a guy that wrote a book about the dems from the Reagan years on. What they're doing now to Sanders is exactly what they've done in every primary sense then. Jesse jackson proposed the Obama coalition to the dem party but the party decided that he was an existential threat and crushed him so dukakus could go and lose instead.
Xdaunts old Meme of electability is 100% legit looking back at history. The democratic party would rather lose being center left then risk becoming a progressive party.
|
Northern Ireland24410 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:31 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words. It is strange that you think that way, almost no one is getting what they want, and almost everyone thinks they are compromising to much. And why should you have your way? If most people don't support your way, why do you get to be right? Your position seems very entitled, and this is why middle America does not agree with you. They think it is a a lot of educated elites telling them what they should want instead of listening to what they say. Democracies don't work that way, and the Lenin Marxist socialism that gets touted here never works out well for the people it is supposed to help and always ends up with a horrible one party dictatorship that benefits the elite while not even allowing the poor to express dissatisfaction or have any hope of changing their situation. I would be surprised if even 10% of American's would vote for a system whose main founders was one of the evilest people in history (Stalin). Socialist democracy is the best a leftist can hope for in the states. And thinking that it was going to be easy or that it would happen without the support of at least most of the democrats is silly. Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote:
I led a pro-Gore march through the halls of my middle school the day after the 2000 election, so I’ll take the blame. All Farvacola's fault, lets all grab our pitchforks!
Almost everyone thinks they are the ones compromising, doesn’t mean everyone actually is.
|
On March 05 2020 03:39 Sermokala wrote:
I was listening to a podcast where it talked about a guy that wrote a book about the dems from the Reagan years on. What they're doing now to Sanders is exactly what they've done in every primary sense then. Jesse jackson proposed the Obama coalition to the dem party but the party decided that he was an existential threat and crushed him so dukakus could go and lose instead.
Xdaunts old Meme of electability is 100% legit looking back at history. The democratic party would rather lose being center left then risk becoming a progressive party.
It is win-win for the people that donate the max to both parties
|
|
|
|
|
On March 05 2020 03:39 Sermokala wrote:
I was listening to a podcast where it talked about a guy that wrote a book about the dems from the Reagan years on. What they're doing now to Sanders is exactly what they've done in every primary sense then. Jesse jackson proposed the Obama coalition to the dem party but the party decided that he was an existential threat and crushed him so dukakus could go and lose instead.
Xdaunts old Meme of electability is 100% legit looking back at history. The democratic party would rather lose being center left then risk becoming a progressive party.
100%. The core of neoliberalism is a switch where instead of having a left that represents change in favor of the people and a right that represents the status quo, you get a left that represents the status quo and a right that represents a change against people (but lies about it).
Under the incentives of this system, it's much better for the left to lose than it is for it to start believing in something.
|
Norway28598 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think Biden is 0.01% better than Trump lol, I think he's approximately 94.35% better. So I entirely disagree with the premise. If people think he's virtually identical then whatever, but I really don't see how they are. That argument would resonate far better with me in a Hillary vs Jeb election than a Trump vs Biden one.
Could see it for Trump vs Bloomberg tho.
I suppose it depends on what metrics you use. In terms of policy, Trump has hardly differed much from the standard Bush-style conservative approach. Where he has differed, it's mostly been things like scrapping trade deals, which for the most part is a large net positive. He certainly does come off as far more of a clown than your average candidate, but I hope that's not the supposed difference between him and someone like Jeb. And I certainly doubt you meant that Clinton and Biden are significantly different candidates, because they hardly seem to be in any meaningful sense. I'm struggling to really see what materially different things Biden is supposedly going to do that are to be cheered on. He's notionally going to be more supportive of left-leaning things like climate policy, taxing the wealthy, and civil rights, but with the exception of perhaps the latter it's mostly going to indeed just be notional. Hardly a resounding win to be cheering on - or, in fact, a deep motivator for people who actually care about these issues to be desperate to replace Trump with this other highly questionable candidate for. Frankly the argument seems to be "we need to defeat Trump at all costs" among the rank-and-file Democrats. To what end, of course, is never particularly well explained. Stop Trump now, figure out why it was such a big deal to do so later.
I think Trump's relationship with concepts like 'truth' and 'facts' actually deviate a lot from the republican norm (even if I saw a lot of the same from leading players during the buildup to the Iraq war, it was never to the same magnitude or abrasiveness), I am very negative towards the war on the press, and the building of a personal cult, increasing polarization to the degree where political supporters leaning one way end up genuinely wishing ill for political supporters on the other side coupled with claims (that end up being eaten up hook line and sinker) that climate change is a hoax is truly dangerous. I know that he has tapped into something already existing within the republican base, but these areas are all areas where he differs significantly from earlier republicans assumed electable for presidency.
I also do believe the clownishness is of significance, but yea it's not the main reason for fearing another period.
On economic policy and packing courts they're all much the same.
|
On March 05 2020 03:41 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:31 JimmiC wrote:On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words. It is strange that you think that way, almost no one is getting what they want, and almost everyone thinks they are compromising to much. And why should you have your way? If most people don't support your way, why do you get to be right? Your position seems very entitled, and this is why middle America does not agree with you. They think it is a a lot of educated elites telling them what they should want instead of listening to what they say. Democracies don't work that way, and the Lenin Marxist socialism that gets touted here never works out well for the people it is supposed to help and always ends up with a horrible one party dictatorship that benefits the elite while not even allowing the poor to express dissatisfaction or have any hope of changing their situation. I would be surprised if even 10% of American's would vote for a system whose main founders was one of the evilest people in history (Stalin). Socialist democracy is the best a leftist can hope for in the states. And thinking that it was going to be easy or that it would happen without the support of at least most of the democrats is silly. On March 05 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote:
I led a pro-Gore march through the halls of my middle school the day after the 2000 election, so I’ll take the blame. All Farvacola's fault, lets all grab our pitchforks! Almost everyone thinks they are the ones compromising, doesn’t mean everyone actually is.
When I think of tough compromises I think of Cuba allowing the US to run an extrajudicial torture camp on their island to avoid accountability so the US doesn't wipe them from existence.
|
United States13816 Posts
I mean they still talk about "Reagan democrats" as if they haven't been republicans for decades now. Biden can rely on surrogates as much as he wants but he makes Trump look like a hale mentaly stable man in his 60's maybe.
Biden and the DNC have to make a serious concession to Bernies base in order to get the turnout and social media energy to defeat Trump. Its bizarre that the right had a stronger reddit presence in the last election and its easy to see them having a stronger social media presence this election as well.
|
United States13816 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 05 2020 03:31 JimmiC wrote:On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words. It is strange that you think that way, almost no one is getting what they want, and almost everyone thinks they are compromising to much. And why should you have your way? If most people don't support your way, why do you get to be right? Your position seems very entitled, and this is why middle America does not agree with you. They think it is a a lot of educated elites telling them what they should want instead of listening to what they say. Democracies don't work that way, and the Lenin Marxist socialism that gets touted here never works out well for the people it is supposed to help and always ends up with a horrible one party dictatorship that benefits the elite while not even allowing the poor to express dissatisfaction or have any hope of changing their situation. I would be surprised if even 10% of American's would vote for a system whose main founders was one of the evilest people in history (Stalin). Socialist democracy is the best a leftist can hope for in the states. And thinking that it was going to be easy or that it would happen without the support of at least most of the democrats is silly. On March 05 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote:
I led a pro-Gore march through the halls of my middle school the day after the 2000 election, so I’ll take the blame. All Farvacola's fault, lets all grab our pitchforks! Almost everyone thinks they are the ones compromising, doesn’t mean everyone actually is. When I think of tough compromises I think of Cuba allowing the US to run an extrajudicial torture camp on their island to avoid accountability so the US doesn't wipe them from existence.
They don't "allow" us to run gitmo, they don't cash the check we send them for it every year. We've held onto the fort from the Spanish American war and now its just a convenient grey site for the nation to send people.
I do belive that we've tried to wipe them from existence. You may have heard about it hmmmm
The hungarian upriseing.
|
On March 05 2020 03:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 03:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 05 2020 03:31 JimmiC wrote:On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words. It is strange that you think that way, almost no one is getting what they want, and almost everyone thinks they are compromising to much. And why should you have your way? If most people don't support your way, why do you get to be right? Your position seems very entitled, and this is why middle America does not agree with you. They think it is a a lot of educated elites telling them what they should want instead of listening to what they say. Democracies don't work that way, and the Lenin Marxist socialism that gets touted here never works out well for the people it is supposed to help and always ends up with a horrible one party dictatorship that benefits the elite while not even allowing the poor to express dissatisfaction or have any hope of changing their situation. I would be surprised if even 10% of American's would vote for a system whose main founders was one of the evilest people in history (Stalin). Socialist democracy is the best a leftist can hope for in the states. And thinking that it was going to be easy or that it would happen without the support of at least most of the democrats is silly. On March 05 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote:
I led a pro-Gore march through the halls of my middle school the day after the 2000 election, so I’ll take the blame. All Farvacola's fault, lets all grab our pitchforks! Almost everyone thinks they are the ones compromising, doesn’t mean everyone actually is. When I think of tough compromises I think of Cuba allowing the US to run an extrajudicial torture camp on their island to avoid accountability so the US doesn't wipe them from existence. They don't "allow" us to run gitmo, they don't cash the check we send them for it every year. We've held onto the fort from the spanish american war and now its just a convient grey site for the nation to send people.
I was being facetious to illustrate a point about "compromising" with the status quo
|
Canada8988 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2020 03:41 Wombat_NI wrote:On March 05 2020 03:31 JimmiC wrote:On March 05 2020 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:On March 05 2020 03:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The fringe has to compromise.. That's pretty much the nature of a compromise. In a multi-party system, it can be an argument for voting for a party to the left (or right) of what you yourself believe, (because the compromise they will be part of might be the closest to what you want), and in a two party system, it's an argument for voting for the lesser of two evils, because not doing so empowers the greater of two evils.
Like, in Norway we do have one party (they're called Rødt - or 'Red') with parliamentary representation that is to the left of the socialist left party that I vote for. Those guys are actual communists, used to be revolutionary communists until fairly recently. There's a saying among some of their voters that go 'I have voted for Red all my life, and I hope they never attain power' - quite some of their voters want them to push everybody else leftward, but without actually implementing a communist revolution.
Not the fringe, the powerless, important distinction. Also I'm not sure why you call it a compromise when they get 100% of what they want and we get 0% of what we want, sounds like a weird rhetorical choice of words. It is strange that you think that way, almost no one is getting what they want, and almost everyone thinks they are compromising to much. And why should you have your way? If most people don't support your way, why do you get to be right? Your position seems very entitled, and this is why middle America does not agree with you. They think it is a a lot of educated elites telling them what they should want instead of listening to what they say. Democracies don't work that way, and the Lenin Marxist socialism that gets touted here never works out well for the people it is supposed to help and always ends up with a horrible one party dictatorship that benefits the elite while not even allowing the poor to express dissatisfaction or have any hope of changing their situation. I would be surprised if even 10% of American's would vote for a system whose main founders was one of the evilest people in history (Stalin). Socialist democracy is the best a leftist can hope for in the states. And thinking that it was going to be easy or that it would happen without the support of at least most of the democrats is silly. On March 05 2020 02:54 farvacola wrote:
I led a pro-Gore march through the halls of my middle school the day after the 2000 election, so I’ll take the blame. All Farvacola's fault, lets all grab our pitchforks! Almost everyone thinks they are the ones compromising, doesn’t mean everyone actually is. When I think of tough compromises I think of Cuba allowing the US to run an extrajudicial torture camp on their island to avoid accountability so the US doesn't wipe them from existence. They don't "allow" us to run gitmo, they don't cash the check we send them for it every year. We've held onto the fort from the Spanish American war and now its just a convenient grey site for the nation to send people. I do belive that we've tried to wipe them from existence. You may have heard about it hmmmm The hungarian upriseing.
I'm confuse, is there a link between the hungarian upriseing and Cuba? (Not beeing a dick, I honestly don't know)
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 05 2020 03:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:31 LegalLord wrote:On March 05 2020 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think Biden is 0.01% better than Trump lol, I think he's approximately 94.35% better. So I entirely disagree with the premise. If people think he's virtually identical then whatever, but I really don't see how they are. That argument would resonate far better with me in a Hillary vs Jeb election than a Trump vs Biden one.
Could see it for Trump vs Bloomberg tho.
I suppose it depends on what metrics you use. In terms of policy, Trump has hardly differed much from the standard Bush-style conservative approach. Where he has differed, it's mostly been things like scrapping trade deals, which for the most part is a large net positive. He certainly does come off as far more of a clown than your average candidate, but I hope that's not the supposed difference between him and someone like Jeb. And I certainly doubt you meant that Clinton and Biden are significantly different candidates, because they hardly seem to be in any meaningful sense. I'm struggling to really see what materially different things Biden is supposedly going to do that are to be cheered on. He's notionally going to be more supportive of left-leaning things like climate policy, taxing the wealthy, and civil rights, but with the exception of perhaps the latter it's mostly going to indeed just be notional. Hardly a resounding win to be cheering on - or, in fact, a deep motivator for people who actually care about these issues to be desperate to replace Trump with this other highly questionable candidate for. Frankly the argument seems to be "we need to defeat Trump at all costs" among the rank-and-file Democrats. To what end, of course, is never particularly well explained. Stop Trump now, figure out why it was such a big deal to do so later. I think Trump's relationship with concepts like 'truth' and 'facts' actually deviate a lot from the republican norm (even if I saw a lot of the same from leading players during the buildup to the Iraq war, it was never to the same magnitude or abrasiveness), I am very negative towards the war on the press, and the building of a personal cult, increasing polarization to the degree where political supporters leaning one way end up genuinely wishing ill for political supporters on the other side coupled with claims (that end up being eaten up hook line and sinker) that climate change is a hoax is truly dangerous. I know that he has tapped into something already existing within the republican base, but these areas are all areas where he differs significantly from earlier republicans assumed electable for presidency. I also do believe the clownishness is of significance, but yea it's not the main reason for fearing another period. On economic policy and packing courts they're all much the same.
Yeah that's fair, if those (somewhat) personal aspects of his character and means of governing are your main concerns, then he's clearly a lot of trouble. In my eyes, those matter less because:
1. They don't really change his policy overall.
2. I know too many Republicans who are like that for it to even seem out-of-the-ordinary.
Biden/Clinton don't have those particular flaws, to be sure. Wonder how much those matter relative to policy for the average voter, though.
|
On March 05 2020 03:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2020 03:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I don't think Biden is 0.01% better than Trump lol, I think he's approximately 94.35% better. So I entirely disagree with the premise. If people think he's virtually identical then whatever, but I really don't see how they are. That argument would resonate far better with me in a Hillary vs Jeb election than a Trump vs Biden one.
Could see it for Trump vs Bloomberg tho.
I suppose it depends on what metrics you use. In terms of policy, Trump has hardly differed much from the standard Bush-style conservative approach. Where he has differed, it's mostly been things like scrapping trade deals, which for the most part is a large net positive. He certainly does come off as far more of a clown than your average candidate, but I hope that's not the supposed difference between him and someone like Jeb. And I certainly doubt you meant that Clinton and Biden are significantly different candidates, because they hardly seem to be in any meaningful sense. I'm struggling to really see what materially different things Biden is supposedly going to do that are to be cheered on. He's notionally going to be more supportive of left-leaning things like climate policy, taxing the wealthy, and civil rights, but with the exception of perhaps the latter it's mostly going to indeed just be notional. Hardly a resounding win to be cheering on - or, in fact, a deep motivator for people who actually care about these issues to be desperate to replace Trump with this other highly questionable candidate for. Frankly the argument seems to be "we need to defeat Trump at all costs" among the rank-and-file Democrats. To what end, of course, is never particularly well explained. Stop Trump now, figure out why it was such a big deal to do so later.
Materially different?
-Supreme court picks
-Enforcement and enactment of different regulations (consumer protection, "religious" rights, LGBTQ rights, voting rights, etc.)
-Defending (or not defending) certain lawsuits
-Foreign policy
-Numerous policies, including climate, healthcare, regulation, etc.
Biden's a shitty pick, but it takes only the most cursory glances to see how he is different from Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
