EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2246
| 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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On April 10 2020 05:52 JimmiC wrote: You seem to have missed the question, likely intentional. The question is there any person in the US that has a ethical reason to not vote Biden. It is do you, knowing the alternative is Trump. Instead of dodging the question with strawmans to change the questions answer it, or stop posting. The logical extrapolation is that millions of people have a reason, if none other than standing in solidarity with victims like Tara Reade who live in a country that would make her (credibly accused) rapist the most powerful man in the world and tell her the only ethical choice is for everyone else to support that. We could replace Tara and her story with Anita Hill, or Patrick Jones (family) or countless other names and stories. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
rope123
27 Posts
As a collective german voters "should" probably have coalesced behind a single center-right party in opposition of the NSDAP, but in a democracy it can't be the responsibility of an individual to vote against his conscience. A person who voted for the SPD in 1933 should never be blamed for Hitler. Blame rests with the actual Nazis. Go ahead and make the pragmatic case for voting Biden, but don't claim the moral highground. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 10 2020 04:59 Wombat_NI wrote: What does ethically open refer to in this context? Sure in say, the European context when it’s people choosing to move of their own volition from relatively economically similar nations, for wanting to pursue certain economic opportunities or for cultural reasons, don’t see any issues with those kind of scenarios. And no I’m not against it for individuals either, but to take one example, Mexican immigration for a better life is good because Mexico is in bad shape, without considering or tackling why Mexico is in bad shape is just avoiding giant elephants in the room. I don't think it's avoiding an elephant in the room. Let's say Mississippi is in worse shape economically than Texas or California, would it be right to argue that someone from Mississippi can't migrate to another American state to seek better opportunity, and by exercising that opportunity both producing more for the world and everyone else until Mississippi is 'fixed'? I don't think anyone would argue this, and that is simply the point. It's an individual moral right to freely seek opportunity, and there is no meaningful difference if that is across the border between the US and Mexico or between the border between two US states. The only difference is ethnic or national tribalism. A few decades ago people in Europe could have constructed the same argument for Polish people migrating to Germany. Now Polish people can move freely and everyone is better off. From both an economic and ethical standpoint denying people to simply exercise individual freedom to move is I think one of the most archaic practises that we ought to get rid off. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7306 Posts
When all progressives get told is, "yeah you have to vote for our conservative candidate, change will happen later," change never seems to fucking happen, its always later-later-later, and for how much shit people give to GH for not being able to cough up a detailed plan of action for his vision of the future all that I seem to hear from those same people is to just deal with picking our your favorite sex offender and we can deal with next later. Its every election I've been alive for, if you want progressives to feel like theres a vision for the future then please consider the fact that we see Joe Biden and his ilk, we look up what he says he'll do, and then we look at what hes actually done, and we see a dissonance there. We then have two choices, we can do, "yeah we'll take him at his word despite his long history as a conservative," or we can go, "you know, he says one thing, but hes made a life of doing something else." If you applied that same question but with Donald Trump I think its safe to say most people would say, "yeah, we don't believe anything Trump says because hes proven to be a narcissistic liar," whereas some people look at Joe Biden and go, "he says thats what he'll do, sure hes voted conservatively, bragged about how conservative hes been, and is known for failing in previous primaries for being a liar and a plagiarizer, but I see no reason to see why he wouldn't champion things hes never really championed before." I like Bernie because hes consistent and actually believes what he says, these conservative Democrats who only ever believe something once its politically convenient are extremely disingenuous by comparison. People like me feel like we've got two options, prove right the people who voted for Biden because he was "electable" (and fuck me if that wasnt about the only argument for Biden that I ever heard, we joke about not knowing his policy positions because he barely ever fucking bothered to share them with us in favor of TrumpTrumpTrumpTrumpTrumping) and thus enable further elections where "yeah we dont care about their policy, we just care if they'll win." Or we can take a chance, vote for a third party, and maybe this concept that the most electable candidate regardless of anything else should be who we rally around forever more will die out. We're aware the chance of this is low, a lot people in the US love their status quo with high insurance premiums, high copays, children in camps, black people in prison, etc. etc. At the bare assed minimum they're comfortable with it, so I know that its a long shot to think that the Democrats might be driven leftwards by a potential rebuke of their centrist conservative favorites, but given two options being 1) vote centrist and probably just have centrists for the next 40+ years (be them republican or democrat centrists) and 2) dont vote centrist and maybe have a candidate who is believably progressive win in 4 - 8 years, I'm taking my long shot on not having to live half my fucking live in this crappy status quo. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
On April 10 2020 06:50 mierin wrote: The "fuck you, I've got mine" argument is as prevalent in democratic circles as it is in republican ones. It's going to be a hard road indeed to unseat that mindset. I mean in some ways I get it. This system makes it feel like you've used the ladder to escape a hoard of zombies and pulling it up behind you is the only sensible choice. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2020 06:33 Nyxisto wrote: I don't think it's avoiding an elephant in the room. Let's say Mississippi is in worse shape economically than Texas or California, would it be right to argue that someone from Mississippi can't migrate to another American state to seek better opportunity, and by exercising that opportunity both producing more for the world and everyone else until Mississippi is 'fixed'? I don't think anyone would argue this, and that is simply the point. It's an individual moral right to freely seek opportunity, and there is no meaningful difference if that is across the border between the US and Mexico or between the border between two US states. The only difference is ethnic or national tribalism. A few decades ago people in Europe could have constructed the same argument for Polish people migrating to Germany. Now Polish people can move freely and everyone is better off. From both an economic and ethical standpoint denying people to simply exercise individual freedom to move is I think one of the most archaic practises that we ought to get rid off. There is a quite meaningful difference between a state border and national one, especially in potential differences in policy between said areas. Texas does get to pursue a drug war against Mississippi for one. Likewise there’s few legal loopholes to jump through in relocating in that manner. The European Union redistributes money via various mechanisms to ostensibly pull up the poorer nation states, be it the Regional Development Fund, free trade benefits etc, in part to vaguely drag everyone up to a vaguely equivalent level. Which is the kind of process I’m talking about that should go alongside merely just letting people from poor nations into your country and getting all that economic boost, while not extending it out the other way. I don’t think it’s a great freedom that people feel so desperate they cross over to the States, maybe don’t speak the language and have to live in fear of ICE knocking on their door. Yes it should be an individual’s right but I’m skeptical as to it being employed as a wider policy in the manner it’s being pursued currently, either in actuality or in rhetoric. On the wider economic benefits (to rich Western countries) where is that all going and diffusing to? | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean in some ways I get it. This system makes it feel like you've used the ladder to escape a hoard of zombies and pulling it up behind you is the only sensible choice. It's especially frustrating because I am one of those who "has theirs". If there were a "rebellion" ala star wars, I would be enlisted. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On April 10 2020 06:55 JimmiC wrote: If there was a center party in a two party system and one was Hitler and the other person was not Hitler, but not left enough for you, and has some at this point unproven allegations of sexual assualt, it is your position that people should have not voted for either or voted for Hitler so he would win. I wouldn't bring up Hitler analogies if you are arguing for centrism. The rise of nazism is in part a story of a centrist government failing to provide adequate aid for the ailing population allowing for the start of a fascist government which could have been quelled. However the centrist party ran on the left but governed from the right and was unwilling to make any concessions to unite the left or improve the conditions of the working class so they wouldn't turn to facism. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12193 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:23 Logo wrote: I wouldn't bring up Hitler analogies if you are arguing for centrism. The rise of nazism is in part a story of a centrist government failing to provide adequate aid for the ailing population allowing for the start of a fascist government which could have been quelled. However the centrist party ran on the left but governed from the right and was unwilling to make any concessions to unite the left or improve the conditions of the working class so they wouldn't turn to facism. What a familiar story. Like the cool old dude said, neoliberalism isn't liberal, and it isn't new. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:23 mierin wrote: It's especially frustrating because I am one of those who "has theirs". If there were a "rebellion" ala star wars, I would be enlisted. I’m not sure what it is, some people view their status as singularly earned, some recognise that they’re merely part of a wider, complex society. Especially people who started poor, confuses me that they can just forget the bad times. If I have my rebellion though I’ll make sure to keep you in mind. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
If those rightwing people are so crazy and evil, why don't the "centrists" support the leftwing for once, to prevent all the bad that Trump is going to do? An even better solution, of course, would be to have an election system where people can actually vote for the thing they like, as opposed to having to select the less bad of two options which both suck. I honestly think that this situation is similar to the healthcare one. A lot of americans have simply never experienced another system and thus assume that all the things that are bad about their system are unavoidable. All the weird tactical voting, the blaming of people for stuff they didn't vote for because they didn't vote for the "correct" other option and the forced preselected coalitions don't need to be that way. They are avoidable. In Germany, i can just vote for the party i like, and i have a bunch of different options. In the US, i would now need to figure out if i am willing to vote for Biden just to prevent more Trump. Also, my vote has the same value as any other vote across the country. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12193 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:35 Wombat_NI wrote: I’m not sure what it is, some people view their status as singularly earned, some recognise that they’re merely part of a wider, complex society. Especially people who started poor, confuses me that they can just forget the bad times. If I have my rebellion though I’ll make sure to keep you in mind. Ultimately you have to find if your goal in politics is to improve the situation of humans/society or if it's to improve your own situation. This is a question for your value set, not for your rationality. I don't think you can find that one of the answers is correct or wrong without starting from a moral axiom. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:39 Simberto wrote: I also wonder why it always seems to be the case that the leftwing needs to bite the bullet and vote for a slightly less conservative to prevent the rightwing crazies. If those rightwing people are so crazy and evil, why don't the "centrists" support the leftwing for once, to prevent all the bad that Trump is going to do? An even better solution, of course, would be to have an election system where people can actually vote for the thing they like, as opposed to having to select the less bad of two options which both suck. I honestly think that this situation is similar to the healthcare one. A lot of americans have simply never experienced another system and thus assume that all the things that are bad about their system are unavoidable. All the weird tactical voting, the blaming of people for stuff they didn't vote for because they didn't vote for the "correct" other option and the forced preselected coalitions don't need to be that way. They are avoidable. In Germany, i can just vote for the party i like, and i have a bunch of different options. In the US, i would now need to figure out if i am willing to vote for Biden just to prevent more Trump. Also, my vote has the same value as any other vote across the country. A lot of presidentialist countries (most SA countries for example) have this with elections in two rounds, but even in those, there is still a chance of having a centrist vs centrist second round. Do you think that if the US had two round elections (without the electoral vote bs, to make it simpler), you would have a Bernie vs Trump second round? Seems to me more likely that you'd get the same Biden vs Trump second round. When a single government position is a stake (unlike parlimentary elections where there are a lot of seats being disputed), you need to come down to two options, otherwise you get weird things like minority candidates deciding the election by choosing to run or not run. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On April 10 2020 07:39 Simberto wrote: I also wonder why it always seems to be the case that the leftwing needs to bite the bullet and vote for a slightly less conservative to prevent the rightwing crazies. If those rightwing people are so crazy and evil, why don't the "centrists" support the leftwing for once, to prevent all the bad that Trump is going to do? An even better solution, of course, would be to have an election system where people can actually vote for the thing they like, as opposed to having to select the less bad of two options which both suck. I honestly think that this situation is similar to the healthcare one. A lot of americans have simply never experienced another system and thus assume that all the things that are bad about their system are unavoidable. All the weird tactical voting, the blaming of people for stuff they didn't vote for because they didn't vote for the "correct" other option and the forced preselected coalitions don't need to be that way. They are avoidable. In Germany, i can just vote for the party i like, and i have a bunch of different options. In the US, i would now need to figure out if i am willing to vote for Biden just to prevent more Trump. Also, my vote has the same value as any other vote across the country. I mean, our current system to answer the bolded portion is to take all the people who agree the Republicans are crazy and evil (both “leftists” and “centrists,” if that’s the preferred terminology), let them vote on the best path forward, and agree that whatever the outcome of the vote, they’ll all back it. If the leftists win the vote, the centrists agree to support them, and vice versa. Maybe it would be better if we solved the problem some other way. Abandon FPTP? Ranked-choice voting in the general? Idk, I’m not well-versed in alternative electoral schemes. But even if that would be better, that’s not super actionable at the moment, is it? And immediately after your side just lost in the current system is just about the least credible time to say “you know, I was thinking msybe we should switch to a different system. I was thinking we’d apply it retroactively?” | ||
| ||
