|
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 |
United States24772 Posts
On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing?
Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again.
I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts.
*I did not win in the primary either
|
Is there even evidence that the progressive vote matters looking at the 2016 election? I'm not sure catering to college students in California is as relevant as trying to win over Midwestern workers or suburban voters in Florida
|
On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? If progressives are as necessary as we're lead to believe, why shouldn't we have concessions made for us, rather than being told "you better fucking vote for us, because we'll lose if you dont!" and "you're not nearly important enough to have any influence on our policy."
Its more than a little frustrating to apparently have so much power and be expected to use it for people who refuse to acknowledge our wants and needs.
Again it's not about you and your "power".
But if you want an answer, it's because what the progressives want to hear will alienate moderate voters that are also crucial to win. That's, seriously, just political role play, and if you are ready to throw the future of your country for what kind of rhetoric you want Biden to play, you should reevaluate.
Biden will push the country as far as he can to the left. Just like Obama did, and just what Sanders would have done. They all did, and will all, fall short. And the result, will be quite similar, and it will be better than nothing and a gazillion times better than Trump.
|
On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either
You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have.
Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!"
On April 15 2020 11:11 Nyxisto wrote:
Is there even evidence that the progressive vote matters looking at the 2016 election? I'm not sure catering to college students in California is as relevant as trying to win over Midwestern workers or suburban voters in Florida
If thats the case then I'd like to stop hearing people jump to bitching at progressives every chance they get since our votes don't matter much.
They need to pick one, we either are a large powerful voting block that can swing elections (in which case do the work to court us so we vote for you), or we're not and our votes dont matter (so don't fucking blame us for your candidates losses.)
|
Being a "captive" bloc of the party, who will vote for that party no matter what, is the best way NOT to get what you want. Why cater to a group who will vote for you anyways?
Every election is a game of "if the other guy wins, a disaster beyond your imagination will occur." And it's valid to perceive that Trump in particular showed that there was a very real risk of that indeed. But why is the other party suddenly not required to show that it will actually lead to something better, not required to actually win over the voters who are told that they should vote for this party? That's just not how it works; that's a great way to get long-term political stagnation.
It wouldn't take all that much to win over enough progressives to make it a sure win. Pick a better VP than Tim Kaine. Expand healthcare coverage with at least Obamacare Plus, even if M4A is scary. Promise meaningful change on minimum wage and student debt. Literally just don't blunder as hard as Hillary did with a "fuck you, got mine" approach and it'll be enough. Certainly you won't get the support of some die-hards like GH, but even a small but clearly more than token effort would help build the kind of broad coalition that would lead to a big Democratic win. Biden should have to earn the vote, not just assume that he's entitled to it, and that is what many progressives really want.
|
On April 15 2020 11:18 LegalLord wrote:
Being a "captive" bloc of the party, who will vote for that party no matter what, is the best way NOT to get what you want. Why cater to a group who will vote for you anyways?
Every election is a game of "if the other guy wins, a disaster beyond your imagination will occur." And it's valid to perceive that Trump in particular showed that there was a very real risk of that indeed. But why is the other party suddenly not required to show that it will actually lead to something better, not required to actually win over the voters who are told that they should vote for this party? That's just not how it works; that's a great way to get long-term political stagnation.
It wouldn't take all that much to win over enough progressives to make it a sure win. Pick a better VP than Tim Kaine. Expand healthcare coverage with at least Obamacare Plus, even if M4A is scary. Promise meaningful change on minimum wage and student debt. Literally just don't blunder as hard as Hillary did with a "fuck you, got mine" approach and it'll be enough. Certainly you won't get the support of some die-hards like GH, but even a small but clearly more than token effort would help build the kind of broad coalition that would lead to a big Democratic win. Biden should have to earn the vote, not just assume that he's entitled to it, and that is what many progressives really want.
This would AT LEAST show that stomaching Biden for four years (there is no way hes not Ronald Reaganing in four years in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet) might lead to actual progressivism being a thing we can come to expect out of Democrats. Beats the shit out of, "oh you don't like conservatives? tough shit suck it up and vote for ours."
|
Democrats are useless to stop Trump as was quite succinctly demonstrated by the Mueller investigation and Ukraine impeachment failures imo.
What to do with that information is debatable, but voting for Biden is just denial imo.
|
United States24772 Posts
On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have. Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!"
I didn't say progressives should have zero influence. I said, if they want to strongly dictate the policy of the nominee while retaining the ability to block the worse candidate from the other party, their currently favored candidate should win the primary.
I don't liken the primary to losing round one of a boxing match. I liken the primary to getting knocked out from the general election. The good news is, the next match is in just a few years, and there are other lower stakes matches besides the presidency as well.
|
On April 15 2020 11:28 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have. Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!" I didn't say progressives should have zero influence. I said, if they want to strongly dictate the policy of the nominee while retaining the ability to block the worse candidate from the other party, their currently favored candidate should win the primary. I don't liken the primary to losing round one of a boxing match. I liken the primary to getting knocked out from the general election. The good news is, the next match is in just a few years, and there are other lower stakes matches besides the presidency as well.
The problem is we aren’t knocked out, Bernie is knocked out, but losing the primary doesn’t mean we have to accept anything. Progressive causes obviously won’t go as far without Bernie but we can still push for Biden to be more progressive to incentivize us to vote for him rather than a third party.
|
United States24772 Posts
On April 15 2020 11:33 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:28 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have. Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!" I didn't say progressives should have zero influence. I said, if they want to strongly dictate the policy of the nominee while retaining the ability to block the worse candidate from the other party, their currently favored candidate should win the primary. I don't liken the primary to losing round one of a boxing match. I liken the primary to getting knocked out from the general election. The good news is, the next match is in just a few years, and there are other lower stakes matches besides the presidency as well. The problem is we aren’t knocked out, Bernie is knocked out, but losing the primary doesn’t mean we have to accept anything. Progressive causes obviously won’t go as far without Bernie but we can still push for Biden to be more progressive to incentivize us to vote for him rather than a third party.
You're certainly right you don't have to accept or do anything. The same goes for other people who voted for Bernie. That doesn't change the fact that the only meaningful decision for this election is to replace Trump or leave him in the white house. I think you mentioned earlier that you can stomach another Trump term if you believe it will further your goals. I don't think it will actually further your goals so it's a losing choice, but it's not mine to make for you.
|
On April 15 2020 11:33 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:28 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have. Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!" I didn't say progressives should have zero influence. I said, if they want to strongly dictate the policy of the nominee while retaining the ability to block the worse candidate from the other party, their currently favored candidate should win the primary. I don't liken the primary to losing round one of a boxing match. I liken the primary to getting knocked out from the general election. The good news is, the next match is in just a few years, and there are other lower stakes matches besides the presidency as well. The problem is we aren’t knocked out, Bernie is knocked out, but losing the primary doesn’t mean we have to accept anything. Progressive causes obviously won’t go as far without Bernie but we can still push for Biden to be more progressive to incentivize us to vote for him rather than a third party.
This is one reason they keep trying to shame me for voting third-party despite knowing my vote is already made meaningless by the system.
Hillary lost. My voting for her wouldn't have changed that. What it would have done is make the number of people that demonstrate a will to vote but not for either party smaller. Imagine if the people that also only voted for her as a vote against Trump just didn't give away their vote to her for nothing.
Maybe centrists would finally move out of the way and fall in line behind the progressive changes most of them are willing to admit are necessary (at least during this pandemic).
|
On April 15 2020 11:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:33 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2020 11:28 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:On April 15 2020 11:10 micronesia wrote:On April 15 2020 11:07 Zambrah wrote:
But if they aren't willing to try and cater to progressives (who apparently are a strong enough voting bloc that they can swing an election) then why should progressives abdicate that apparent power for nothing? Because you lost the primary*. Get over it. Come back in eight years (probably 4 if democracy still exists then) and try again. I'm not saying progressives should have zero influence on the post-primary campaign, or should have no influence on the presidency after inauguration day... heck, we would benefit form more progressives in congress to help with policy shifts. *I did not win in the primary either You are saying that progressives should have zero influence though, again, if we have power and we choose not to exercise it, we are abdicating that power. If the Democrats think they cant win without us then they can throw us something to encourage us that yes, they are willing to be progressive or at least MORE progressive, but this idea that they should be able to go, "lol fuck you, we're not going to be progressive cause you arent the literal majority of our primary voters!" and expect us to just shut up and do what they say just seems like a waste of the power we are told we have. Its like losing round one of a boxing match and going, "shit, round ones gone, guess I lost, ref! Hey ref, I quit!" I didn't say progressives should have zero influence. I said, if they want to strongly dictate the policy of the nominee while retaining the ability to block the worse candidate from the other party, their currently favored candidate should win the primary. I don't liken the primary to losing round one of a boxing match. I liken the primary to getting knocked out from the general election. The good news is, the next match is in just a few years, and there are other lower stakes matches besides the presidency as well. The problem is we aren’t knocked out, Bernie is knocked out, but losing the primary doesn’t mean we have to accept anything. Progressive causes obviously won’t go as far without Bernie but we can still push for Biden to be more progressive to incentivize us to vote for him rather than a third party. This is one reason they keep trying to shame me for voting third-party despite knowing my vote is already made meaningless by the system. Hillary lost. My voting for her wouldn't have changed that. What it would have done is make the number of people that demonstrate a will to vote but not for either party smaller. Imagine if the people that also only voted for her as a vote against Trump just didn't give away their vote to her for nothing. Maybe centrists would finally move out of the way and fall in line behind the progressive changes most of them are willing to admit are necessary (at least during this pandemic).
It seems like an odd juxtaposition to tell the significant centrist majority to fall in line with the minority, right after saying that your additional vote for Hillary wouldn't have mattered (an extra 1-2% of the votes would have actually sealed the deal and won her the election, as opposed to asking 60+% of Democrats to change their preference). I'm not saying that the moderates have the moral high ground, but in an election where everything is based on popularity and numbers, and where the primary has already shown us which candidate has the most support, it's surely a harder sell to convince a majority to flip than a minority.
|
A lot of progressives aren't even asking for (or I guess expecting, really) the fully Bernie platform, but working to appeal to us would be nice. A progressive VP, moving leftwards on things people in this country are consistently polled as being in favor of in terms of healthcare and campaign finance, etc. Its not like these issues are unpopular with the majority of Americans in the first place.
But again, expecting our minority to just do whatever the Democrats want just 'cause they say we have to is not a compelling reason for someone with no party fealty to the Democrats to vote Democrat.
|
On April 15 2020 12:01 Zambrah wrote:
A lot of progressives aren't even asking for (or I guess expecting, really) the fully Bernie platform, but working to appeal to us would be nice. A progressive VP, moving leftwards on things people in this country are consistently polled as being in favor of in terms of healthcare and campaign finance, etc. Its not like these issues are unpopular with the majority of Americans in the first place.
But again, expecting our minority to just do whatever the Democrats want just 'cause they say we have to is not a compelling reason for someone with no party fealty to the Democrats to vote Democrat.
Out of curiosity, would you apply the same standard if Bernie won the Democratic primary? Would you advise Bernie to renege on some of his progressive ideas in favor of more moderate ones, in order to appeal to the centrists and earn their votes? If not, why is it different?
|
I wouldn't really expect Bernie to do so given his history and the fact that I believe that he actually really believes in what hes trying to do.
However, I wouldn't particularly blame him for going to the center on some things, and to be honest he very well might given how nice he seems to be playing Democrats (which is also a little irritating given how much hate theyve thrown at him for four years.)
EDIT: I'm curious about whether or not he'd have to though, I'm not so sure that moderates and centrists are as discerning policy wise in the Democrat party. Are they more concerned with implementing moderate or centrist policy or just beating the red guy? Unfortunately its hard to glean from this primary given how the only thing anyone had to say about Biden was "he is electable"
|
I would absolutely expect Bernie to do what it takes to form a coalition if he were the nominee. No one would blame him for toning down several promises and some of the rhetoric. I doubt it'd be as hard as some imagine, though, because despite the "socialist" label he isn't really proposing anything too far outside the Democratic norm. The only real idea that's pretty "out there" is universal healthcare, which I bet could be pushed quite successfully with the right person in charge.
I'd expect his coalition to appeal much less to "the center" than to "the working class" - another swing demographic that swung heavily for Trump in 2016, but is less relevant on a right/left divide than on a economy/no-economy divide. It would just be bad strategy to try to appeal to people who will never vote for a "socialist" in Bernie's position, because it'd never work.
|
On April 15 2020 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
I would absolutely expect Bernie to do what it takes to form a coalition if he were the nominee. No one would blame him for toning down several promises and some of the rhetoric. I doubt it'd be as hard as some imagine, though, because despite the "socialist" label he isn't really proposing anything too far outside the Democratic norm. The only real idea that's pretty "out there" is universal healthcare, which I bet could be pushed quite successfully with the right person in charge.
I'd expect his coalition to appeal much less to "the center" than to "the working class" - another swing demographic that swung heavily for Trump in 2016, but is less relevant on a right/left divide than on a economy/no-economy divide. It would just be bad strategy to try to appeal to people who will never vote for a "socialist" in Bernie's position, because it'd never work.
Bernie's not even pushing anything Democrats aren't purportedly in favor of. Their argument is that their own agenda isn't electable so they have to blend it with a Republican (who they regularly recognize as unreasonable) one.
|
On April 15 2020 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 12:42 LegalLord wrote:
I would absolutely expect Bernie to do what it takes to form a coalition if he were the nominee. No one would blame him for toning down several promises and some of the rhetoric. I doubt it'd be as hard as some imagine, though, because despite the "socialist" label he isn't really proposing anything too far outside the Democratic norm. The only real idea that's pretty "out there" is universal healthcare, which I bet could be pushed quite successfully with the right person in charge.
I'd expect his coalition to appeal much less to "the center" than to "the working class" - another swing demographic that swung heavily for Trump in 2016, but is less relevant on a right/left divide than on a economy/no-economy divide. It would just be bad strategy to try to appeal to people who will never vote for a "socialist" in Bernie's position, because it'd never work. Bernie's not even pushing anything Democrats aren't purportedly in favor of. Their argument is that their own agenda isn't electable so they have to blend it with a Republican (who they regularly recognize as unreasonable) one.
I'd amend Democrats to "Americans in general," really. I wonder what we'd have if instead of Bernie pushing these ideas it was a younger white male guy without Bernie's governmental tenure. A lot of criticisms I hear are "Bernies ideas arent realistic cause hes never gotten anything done in Congress," it makes me wonder if that problem isnt solved by a younger white male (I'd drop the white male part but I've seen what bile people textually excrete at Ilhan Omar and AOC, so uh... yeah.)
|
On April 15 2020 11:16 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 11:11 Nyxisto wrote:
Is there even evidence that the progressive vote matters looking at the 2016 election? I'm not sure catering to college students in California is as relevant as trying to win over Midwestern workers or suburban voters in Florida If thats the case then I'd like to stop hearing people jump to bitching at progressives every chance they get since our votes don't matter much. losses.)
They definitely should and they ought to stop pandering to them. IIRC the turnout of Sanders to Clinton voters was higher than the Clinton to Obama voters, so progressives aren't going to be the crucial voting block. The four big states are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida, right? Going out on a limb here that pivoting to the left isn't going to be key to victory in those states
|
On April 15 2020 08:32 Nevuk wrote:
Trump has halted payments to the WHO. Per NBC reporter. Important due to foreign relations implications and effects on those who rely on WHO aide.
I'll be honest here.
His scapegoating aside, i actually support this measure. Not for the reasons he's given (he clearly is trying to save his neck by blaming the WHO for his woefully inadequate reaction to a pandemic), but generally. I'm not including the viral interview in regards to taiwan either, since in all honesty, i'm not sure what the scientist in that interview was expected to say to the journalist, he's a scientist, so why is he asked about politics in regards to taiwan/china/ etc.
The WHO is indeed too china-friendly. If you go through the praise that Ghebreyesus piled onto china, your head starts spinning, wondering where the heck he's been the entire time and if there's a chinese alex jones whispering sweet nothings into his ears.
And not just sweet-talking, but demonstrably false, deliberately misleading claims in regards to chinas handling of all this.
The WHO is obsolete. Not the original concept, there absolutely should be a global, international "overseer" in regards to health, but the WHO isn't it. Much like the UN, it's a political shitshow, where the real purpose just got buried under political backroom games, quabbles and charades.
To be clear, i support Trumps decision in principle. Not the reasoning he gives behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
