|
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 April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is okay though. Voting for Macron in the second round feels way different, it is never expected that Macron represents you. People don't act as if you owe him your vote, and next election he won't be your party's incumbent, you'll have the same chance of running your guy.
Edit: It's true that Macron is trying to make it so that the american system becomes the french system though so that might become an issue in a few years.
|
On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +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. I think France is an example of this aswell. Plenty of people seemed to not like Macron but the other option was Le Pen so there was they had to pick Macron.
US Progressives seem to have a problem with understanding they are a minority (as evidenced by their candidates repeatedly losing) and keep wondering why the majority doesn't abandon their position to join them.
|
On April 10 2020 08:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote: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. I think France is an example of this aswell. Plenty of people seemed to not like Macron but the other option was Le Pen so there was they had to pick Macron. US Progressives seem to have a problem with understanding they are a minority (as evidenced by their candidates repeatedly losing) and keep wondering why the majority doesn't abandon their position to join them.
I think the issue is a lot of centrists don't appreciate how minorities of people fighting against the majority despite overwhelming odds is how progress is made. The incremental political stuff comes after.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 08:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote: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. This is okay though. Voting for Macron in the second round feels way different, it is never expected that Macron represents you. People don't act as if you owe him your vote, and next election he won't be your party's incumbent, you'll have the same chance of running your guy. Edit: It's true that Macron is trying to make it so that the american system becomes the french system though so that might become an issue in a few years.
Fair enough. I agree that allowing you to cast your vote to someone who can't win (in a two round system) does give legitimacy to it and is an important means of political expression.
+ Show Spoiler +On a sidenote, though I did imply a two round system is necessary because a straight plurarity vote makes it so that a third candidate can sometimes decide the winner by running/not running, the truth is the same can still happen in a two round system, it's just much less likely. A ranked voting system would still be superior.
|
On April 10 2020 08:46 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 08:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote: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. This is okay though. Voting for Macron in the second round feels way different, it is never expected that Macron represents you. People don't act as if you owe him your vote, and next election he won't be your party's incumbent, you'll have the same chance of running your guy. Edit: It's true that Macron is trying to make it so that the american system becomes the french system though so that might become an issue in a few years. Fair enough. I agree that allowing you to cast your vote to someone who can't win (in a two round system) does give legitimacy to it. + Show Spoiler +On a sidenote, though I did imply a two round system is necessary because a straight plurarity vote makes it so that a third candidate can sometimes decide the winner by running/not running, the truth is the same can still happen in a two round system, it's just much less likely. A ranked voting system would still be superior.
I would add that the swiss system is way better btw. Executive proportionally composed of all the main parties, and when the state wants to do something important, they have to fucking ask us first, they don't go "oh we were elected that means people want us to do this". Having control over policy just as much as representation is key.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
On April 10 2020 08:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote: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. I think France is an example of this aswell. Plenty of people seemed to not like Macron but the other option was Le Pen so there was they had to pick Macron. US Progressives seem to have a problem with understanding they are a minority (as evidenced by their candidates repeatedly losing) and keep wondering why the majority doesn't abandon their position to join them.
Certain of their positions are incredibly popular though in consistent polling, not just of registered democrats but of the populace by and large.
Voting for a candidate, you’re voting for their whole platform essentially, and not everything Bernie subscribed to will appeal to everyone.
Your candidate losing is one thing, but the disappearance of action on what parts of a platform are irrefutably popular position is another entirely.
The totality of Sander’s platform is a minority platform, individual parts have great support though. That these never resurface is rather suspect and gives credence to many of these people’s gripes.
|
It's possible the US election between coke and pepsi could be rendered largely irrelevant if unemployment actually reaches as high as 1/4 and the strikers are well-coordinated at a national scale and bypass corrupt union leaders and saboteurs. We have yet to see the consumer debt crisis; I would be cautious about the stock market's current optimism.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 08:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 08:46 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 10 2020 08:20 Nebuchad wrote:On April 10 2020 08:06 Sbrubbles wrote: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. This is okay though. Voting for Macron in the second round feels way different, it is never expected that Macron represents you. People don't act as if you owe him your vote, and next election he won't be your party's incumbent, you'll have the same chance of running your guy. Edit: It's true that Macron is trying to make it so that the american system becomes the french system though so that might become an issue in a few years. Fair enough. I agree that allowing you to cast your vote to someone who can't win (in a two round system) does give legitimacy to it. + Show Spoiler +On a sidenote, though I did imply a two round system is necessary because a straight plurarity vote makes it so that a third candidate can sometimes decide the winner by running/not running, the truth is the same can still happen in a two round system, it's just much less likely. A ranked voting system would still be superior. I would add that the swiss system is way better btw. Executive proportionally composed of all the main parties, and when the state wants to do something important, they have to fucking ask us first, they don't go "oh we were elected that means people want us to do this". Having control over policy just as much as representation is key.
The presidentialism vs parlamentarism (vs the option you're proposing) debate is an interesting one, and one that is brought up over here in Brazil from time to time. Presidentialism won out the last big debate (late 80s), on the basis of being easier to have governability and allowing more leeway for presidents to make big changes with support but not necessarily overwhelming support. I think I'd prefer a parlamentarist system though, for being easier to change government when popular support is lost.
|
Presidential systems are usually better when the state is weak and politically divided. It's easier to guarantee stability in those, and you need stability before moving on to implementing further reforms and eventually transitioning to a more representative parliamentary system.
I said "usually" because I'm not so sure about the superiority of parliamentary systems in regard to huge countries like Brazil, the US or India.
|
The US primaries effectively are the first round in a two round system, though.
I've been consistent and vocal about how terrible FPTP is and if progressives come out of this advocating for a better electoral system I would be behind that one billion percent.
In practice, though, I don't see what a two-stage FPTP would have changed. Bernie would not have got more votes than Biden and neither of them would have got more votes than Trump in an open first round, so the head-to-head would look the same and the first round would more or less have looked the same as well.
|
I think representation is important but overall I really favor the increased democracy part. I would prefer a presidential system where the president has to make sure his policies align with what the people want over a parliamentary system that is more representative but does whatever it wants once it's been elected.
On April 10 2020 09:50 Belisarius wrote:
The US primaries effectively are the first round in a two round system, though.
I disagree. When I vote for Macron in the second round in France, it doesn't mean that Macron will be the representative of my party next election, I'll have another shot to elect who I want next time.
In terms of voting that's probably the main difference but in terms of party affiliation it also doesn't feel the same. Like, a situation where the DNC is distrusted can't really happen here, because we don't have the DNC, our liberals have their DNC and we have our leftist central that has no connexion to it. We're not fighting over what ideology the party should have, cause if we were there'd be another party for the dissenters to join.
|
Biden has released his Olive Branch to Sanders supporters. It's ... very underwhelming. Fits into the current conversation perfectly. I think Hillary may have offered more. Medicare age to 60 and college loan forgiveness for those earning under 125K.
He released them in a medium post (what's with all the medium posts for proposals?)
medium.com
Summary per the hill.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/492063-biden-releases-plans-to-expand-medicare-forgive-student-debt
Biden announced Thursday he would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and forgive federal student debt for low-income and middle-class people who attended public colleges and universities, historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), and underfunded minority-serving institution (MSI).
[...]
“I believe that as we are being plunged into what is likely to be one of the most volatile and difficult economic times in this country’s recent history, we can take these critical steps to help make it easier for working people to make ends meet,” Biden wrote. “Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas, and I’m proud to adopt them as part of my campaign at this critical moment in responding to the coronavirus crisis.”
Under Biden’s plan, Americans would have the option of opting into Medicare when they are 60 or stick with the plans provided by their employers. The proposal is intended to complement Biden’s overall health care plan to provide a public option to any American who wants it while expanding the Affordable Care Act.
Biden’s student debt plan calls for forgiving all federal undergraduate student loans from two- and four-year public colleges and universities and any private HBCUs or MSIs for debt-holders earning up to $125,000. The plan builds on Biden’s existing student loan plan to cancel $10,000 of student debt per person, forgive federal student loans after 20 years and more.
A Biden administration would pay for the student debt plan by repealing the “excess business losses” tax cut in the recently passed $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package.
The former vice president said in a statement he will be releasing further details for his proposals “in the future.”
|
Yeah, this is very far from what I consider to be an olive branch that I would accept.
|
Northern Ireland25405 Posts
It’s pretty bizarre to see a Biden press release worded how I said it should be a few pages ago (vaguely) even down to Bernie and his supporters fighting a good fight.
Am I misreading or is relief for student loans up to 125k of earnings pretty huge? Or is there something I’m missing?
It seems to refer to public federal loans anyway, how prevalent are those vs people taking private loans? At least over here all 1st undergrad loans are from the state.
|
On April 10 2020 10:10 Wombat_NI wrote:
It’s pretty bizarre to see a Biden press release worded how I said it should be a few pages ago (vaguely) even down to Bernie and his supporters fighting a good fight.
Am I misreading or is relief for student loans up to 125k of earnings pretty huge? Or is there something I’m missing?
It seems to refer to public federal loans anyway, how prevalent are those vs people taking private loans? At least over here all 1st undergrad loans are from the state.
The student loans thing is actually pretty good, it's the medicare part that is the.... why bother? levels of olive branch.
Federal loans tend to be the best ones you can get, but there are limits on them and sometimes you can only get one through your college - which will typically be state backed. Occasionally they might have been better deals (lower interest, etc.) so some people will take them.
For instance, for my grad school, I had to take out about 6k in private loans because the federal max was a bit lower than tuition at the school. Not really a normal situation though (and the forgiveness wouldn't apply), and I make about 45k more a year than I would without it. Obviously Biden could never do anything about these anyways.
It seems to be a somewhat cynical/calculated(which one depends on your perspective) move - he's really trying to get the youth vote mobilized, so he's offering what most directly benefits them that was on their list of asks.
|
On April 10 2020 10:05 Zambrah wrote:
Yeah, this is very far from what I consider to be an olive branch that I would accept.
Agreed 100%.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 11:04 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 10:05 Zambrah wrote:
Yeah, this is very far from what I consider to be an olive branch that I would accept. Agreed 100%.
Same, and the college thing only forgives loans over $10,000 (less than 1 year in-state tuition at UW) after paying on them (if you make more than $25k a year) for 20 years as well. Or up to $50k over 5 years if you go into "public service" which should definitely be essential services working right now, but details like that aren't defined.
Obviously the medicare thing is even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
