|
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 15 2020 22:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 21:35 Logo wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 20:29 Simberto wrote:On April 15 2020 20:04 Neneu wrote:
I think if Trump wins his second term, it will be the final confirmation for allies that USA is an unreliable and destabilizing partner. And probably a good sign for progressives to try to leave the country and move to somewhere sensible. I think i am slowly arriving at the conclusion that the US simply cannot and does not want to be saved from their shitty systems. As such, on an individual level, the best choice is to try to get out to a country which is more sensible. The healthcare system alone is reason enough to leave. The fact that the votes of almost everyone are simply irrelevant, and those who can vote have to decide which the lesser of the two evils is does not bode well for any change in a positive direction either. The US seems to become worse and worse over time. I think the most viable option would be for Progressives to push for a two-round presidential election. That would give them a chance to actually build momentum over a few election cycles, with a real shot at having their candidate in the second round. Doesn't the primary already accomplish this? They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. A Bombardment of Manufactured Consent. Obama/DNC pushing/bribing other candidates out of the race + endorsements for Biden. Voter disenfranchisement/long lines in many states. Iowa. Debate rule adjustments to allow/disallow candidates. Stacking debate audiences. Arguably the entire impeachment proceeding (I'm sure it's just coincidence that the two things they've actually tried to nail Trump for are for going after Hillary and going after Biden and not any of the horrible stuff he has done). Claiming there was no DNC bullshit is just hilarious and/or malicious. Also, source please that the long lines for voting were only against progressives and that voters for Biden somehow magically got to cut those long lines and weren't similarly disenfranchised?
So holding a shady election is ok if it's too messy to be obviously for/against one candidate?
An election where people don't vote because of long lines and other systemic barriers isn't legitimate, it's just for show.
Not believing manufactured consent is absolutely hilarious given that there was about 2 Op-eds + many broadcast segments everyday about how Bernie can't/shouldn't/won't win even when all polling data suggested otherwise. I think Biden's post-SC media coverage was estimated to be several hundred million dollars worth of positive coverage?
|
On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence.
Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining.
Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win.
Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible?
|
On April 15 2020 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 21:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:35 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 20:29 Simberto wrote:On April 15 2020 20:04 Neneu wrote:
I think if Trump wins his second term, it will be the final confirmation for allies that USA is an unreliable and destabilizing partner. And probably a good sign for progressives to try to leave the country and move to somewhere sensible. I think i am slowly arriving at the conclusion that the US simply cannot and does not want to be saved from their shitty systems. As such, on an individual level, the best choice is to try to get out to a country which is more sensible. The healthcare system alone is reason enough to leave. The fact that the votes of almost everyone are simply irrelevant, and those who can vote have to decide which the lesser of the two evils is does not bode well for any change in a positive direction either. The US seems to become worse and worse over time. I think the most viable option would be for Progressives to push for a two-round presidential election. That would give them a chance to actually build momentum over a few election cycles, with a real shot at having their candidate in the second round. Doesn't the primary already accomplish this? They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 1. How would it avoid DNC bullshit? 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. To clarify, I was talking about the presidential election, not the primaries being a two-round election. Progressives would circumvent the DNC by running their own candidate in the actual election. They could safely vote for him/her without the fear of splitting the vote. I agree that there are many issues with the US and it does seem beyond repair. What would round one of the general election look like, and what would round two look like? I'm also wondering how, at some point, it doesn't come down to the Democratic party splitting the vote between the moderate liberal candidate and the progressive candidate. In the first round everyone votes according to their beliefs and in the second round for whatever they think is the best of two options left. That is what you have now. Round 1 is the primary where people vote according to their beliefs and round 2 is the general election where they vote for the best of 2 options left. Those who cba to vote now in the primary will do the same in round 1 of a 2 round general election.
It's clearly not the same. The impact for next election is different, now the left will be forced to be behind the Biden candidate in 2024. In a french-like system, when I vote for Macron in the second round, I can still promote my candidate next time around I don't have to wait two terms.
Plus having a party that actually represents my interests is cool, I like it.
Biff: I'll answer in a minute, got something to finish for work first, sorry.
|
On April 15 2020 19:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 15:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
If he had cut the funds for good reasons and at an ok timing, we could talk about it.
But it's at the moment the WHO is the most crucial, with dozens of millions of lives in balance, and because it showed him in a bad light. You know, for having botched completely this crisis. He's literally putting countless lives at risk to deflect blame from his failures.
This guy is a grotesque monster. We're talking about the WHO that strongly advised countries not to close their borders? back in early February? Anyone here want to still tow that line? They can't even get the basics right.Borders are the first line in protecting the people of a nation. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/WHO-chief-urges-against-excessive-China-travel-curbsShow nested quote +There is no need for measures that "unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. The WHO will send a team of experts to China as early as this week to discuss steps to contain the outbreak.
In declaring an international health emergency on Thursday, the WHO issued a similar advisory, saying "there is no reason for measures that unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade."
Declares international health emergency but don't restrict travel to and from China? Righto.
Thaïland didn't restrict or forbid chinese tourists until the end of march when they forbade all entries. And they have a lot of tourists from there.
They had barely 1000 cases at the end of march, but there was extensive health screening and tracking at airports. It went fine.
Everything depends on how you do it. Trump's blanket ban on the whole country was a political "gotcha" measure, nothing else. He took the opportunity to further his chances on an advantageous deal, not to protect his population. Same for the EU *but not UK* ban.
|
On April 15 2020 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 21:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:35 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 20:29 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
And probably a good sign for progressives to try to leave the country and move to somewhere sensible.
I think i am slowly arriving at the conclusion that the US simply cannot and does not want to be saved from their shitty systems. As such, on an individual level, the best choice is to try to get out to a country which is more sensible.
The healthcare system alone is reason enough to leave. The fact that the votes of almost everyone are simply irrelevant, and those who can vote have to decide which the lesser of the two evils is does not bode well for any change in a positive direction either.
The US seems to become worse and worse over time. I think the most viable option would be for Progressives to push for a two-round presidential election. That would give them a chance to actually build momentum over a few election cycles, with a real shot at having their candidate in the second round. Doesn't the primary already accomplish this? They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 1. How would it avoid DNC bullshit? 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. To clarify, I was talking about the presidential election, not the primaries being a two-round election. Progressives would circumvent the DNC by running their own candidate in the actual election. They could safely vote for him/her without the fear of splitting the vote. I agree that there are many issues with the US and it does seem beyond repair. What would round one of the general election look like, and what would round two look like? I'm also wondering how, at some point, it doesn't come down to the Democratic party splitting the vote between the moderate liberal candidate and the progressive candidate. In the first round everyone votes according to their beliefs and in the second round for whatever they think is the best of two options left. That is what you have now. Round 1 is the primary where people vote according to their beliefs and round 2 is the general election where they vote for the best of 2 options left. Those who cba to vote now in the primary will do the same in round 1 of a 2 round general election. It's clearly not the same. The impact for next election is different, now the left will be forced to be behind the Biden candidate in 2024. In a french-like system, when I vote for Macron in the second round, I can still promote my candidate next time around I don't have to wait two terms. Biff: I'll answer in a minute, got something to finish for work first, sorry. There is nothing stopping a Progressive from challenging Biden in 2024 (assuming he comes President).
|
On April 15 2020 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2020 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 21:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:35 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
I think the most viable option would be for Progressives to push for a two-round presidential election. That would give them a chance to actually build momentum over a few election cycles, with a real shot at having their candidate in the second round. Doesn't the primary already accomplish this? They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 1. How would it avoid DNC bullshit? 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. To clarify, I was talking about the presidential election, not the primaries being a two-round election. Progressives would circumvent the DNC by running their own candidate in the actual election. They could safely vote for him/her without the fear of splitting the vote. I agree that there are many issues with the US and it does seem beyond repair. What would round one of the general election look like, and what would round two look like? I'm also wondering how, at some point, it doesn't come down to the Democratic party splitting the vote between the moderate liberal candidate and the progressive candidate. In the first round everyone votes according to their beliefs and in the second round for whatever they think is the best of two options left. That is what you have now. Round 1 is the primary where people vote according to their beliefs and round 2 is the general election where they vote for the best of 2 options left. Those who cba to vote now in the primary will do the same in round 1 of a 2 round general election. It's clearly not the same. The impact for next election is different, now the left will be forced to be behind the Biden candidate in 2024. In a french-like system, when I vote for Macron in the second round, I can still promote my candidate next time around I don't have to wait two terms. Biff: I'll answer in a minute, got something to finish for work first, sorry. There is nothing stopping a Progressive from challenging Biden in 2024 (assuming he comes President).
Just like there was nothing stopping a republican from challenging Trump in 2020. But it's not going to happen. Luckily we're both serious people and we're not going to pretend that it is.
|
On April 15 2020 22:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:30 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 22:23 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2020 22:20 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 21:56 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:35 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Doesn't the primary already accomplish this?
They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 1. How would it avoid DNC bullshit? 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. To clarify, I was talking about the presidential election, not the primaries being a two-round election. Progressives would circumvent the DNC by running their own candidate in the actual election. They could safely vote for him/her without the fear of splitting the vote. I agree that there are many issues with the US and it does seem beyond repair. What would round one of the general election look like, and what would round two look like? I'm also wondering how, at some point, it doesn't come down to the Democratic party splitting the vote between the moderate liberal candidate and the progressive candidate. In the first round everyone votes according to their beliefs and in the second round for whatever they think is the best of two options left. That is what you have now. Round 1 is the primary where people vote according to their beliefs and round 2 is the general election where they vote for the best of 2 options left. Those who cba to vote now in the primary will do the same in round 1 of a 2 round general election. It's clearly not the same. The impact for next election is different, now the left will be forced to be behind the Biden candidate in 2024. In a french-like system, when I vote for Macron in the second round, I can still promote my candidate next time around I don't have to wait two terms. Biff: I'll answer in a minute, got something to finish for work first, sorry. There is nothing stopping a Progressive from challenging Biden in 2024 (assuming he comes President). Just like there was nothing stopping a republican from challenging Trump in 2020. But it's not going to happen. Luckily we're both serious people and we're not going to pretend that it is.
You mean you didn't watch the lively debate between Bill Weld and Bill Walsh streamed via Business Insider's daily Facebook Watch show?
900 people did.
|
On April 15 2020 22:20 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
Warren officially endorsing Biden. Does that mean she's out of the VP race? or does endorsing not impact that?
I don't think an endorsement removes the VP possibility; a ton of who-will-Biden-pick short-lists have other Democratic primary candidates who endorsed him too.
|
On April 15 2020 22:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:35 Logo wrote:On April 15 2020 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 15 2020 21:20 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 21:09 Gorsameth wrote:On April 15 2020 20:48 maybenexttime wrote:On April 15 2020 20:29 Simberto wrote:On April 15 2020 20:04 Neneu wrote:
I think if Trump wins his second term, it will be the final confirmation for allies that USA is an unreliable and destabilizing partner. And probably a good sign for progressives to try to leave the country and move to somewhere sensible. I think i am slowly arriving at the conclusion that the US simply cannot and does not want to be saved from their shitty systems. As such, on an individual level, the best choice is to try to get out to a country which is more sensible. The healthcare system alone is reason enough to leave. The fact that the votes of almost everyone are simply irrelevant, and those who can vote have to decide which the lesser of the two evils is does not bode well for any change in a positive direction either. The US seems to become worse and worse over time. I think the most viable option would be for Progressives to push for a two-round presidential election. That would give them a chance to actually build momentum over a few election cycles, with a real shot at having their candidate in the second round. Doesn't the primary already accomplish this? They wouldn't have to deal with the DNC bullshit. It could also potentially incentivize Progressives who are apathetic about the process and don't vote to actually vote. 2. Progressives can't (well, shouldn't) blame DNC bullshit this time around... they lost to Americans voting for a different candidate. A Bombardment of Manufactured Consent. Obama/DNC pushing/bribing other candidates out of the race + endorsements for Biden. Voter disenfranchisement/long lines in many states. Iowa. Debate rule adjustments to allow/disallow candidates. Stacking debate audiences. Arguably the entire impeachment proceeding (I'm sure it's just coincidence that the two things they've actually tried to nail Trump for are for going after Hillary and going after Biden and not any of the horrible stuff he has done). Claiming there was no DNC bullshit is just hilarious and/or malicious. Also, source please that the long lines for voting were only against progressives and that voters for Biden somehow magically got to cut those long lines and weren't similarly disenfranchised? So holding a shady election is ok if it's too messy to be obviously for/against one candidate? An election where people don't vote because of long lines and other systemic barriers isn't legitimate, it's just for show. Not believing manufactured consent is absolutely hilarious given that there was about 2 Op-eds + many broadcast segments everyday about how Bernie can't/shouldn't/won't win even when all polling data suggested otherwise. I think Biden's post-SC media coverage was estimated to be several hundred million dollars worth of positive coverage?
I absolutely have problems with disenfranchising voters and lines that are unreasonably long, but where is the evidence that the DNC explicitly created this to undermine the election so that Biden would beat Sanders, and how were the Biden voters somehow unaffected?
|
@DarkPlasmaBall, Gorsameth
I never said it would change the outcome of these primaries. Just that it would make it easier for Progressives to gain momentum over the course of a few election cycles. From what I can tell, one of the main reasons why Biden's win was so one-sided was because the turnout among the young Progressives was so low. If I'm not mistaken, they are apathetic about the primaries because they consider them rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Regardless of to what degree that is true, I think a two-round election could help alleviate their concerns. Maybe I'm wrong.
And how is a voting system in which a Progressive candidate doesn't have to deal with the DNC playing dirty rigged?
|
On April 15 2020 22:46 maybenexttime wrote:
@DarkPlasmaBall, Gorsameth
I never said it would change the outcome of these primaries. Just that it would make it easier for Progressives to gain momentum over the course of a few election cycles. From what I can tell, one of the main reasons why Biden's win was so one-sided was because the turnout among the young Progressives was so low. If I'm not mistaken, they are apathetic about the primaries because they consider them rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Regardless of to what degree that is true, I think a two-round election could help alleviate their concerns. Maybe I'm wrong.
And how is a voting system in which a Progressive candidate doesn't have to deal with the DNC playing dirty rigged?
I agree with you that the turnout for pro-Sanders demographics was lower than it needed to be; I don't know exactly why. Maybe it's because they think the system is rigged and voting doesn't matter, or they were too busy, or they were just lazy, etc. I think that making voter registration easier + making actual voting easier (e.g., national holiday with schools and businesses closed) are certainly ways to equitably incentivize all people to vote, which would be a step in the right direction (in terms of fairness, whether or not that benefits progressives in particular).
In response to a new voting system being potentially rigged, I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a post-hoc, special treatment set-up with the premise being "What's the best system that would lead to my preferred candidate winning the election over all the other candidates".
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I just got my stimulus check this morning.
The direct deposit, at least, doesn't have Trump's name on it. Merely, the standard "IRS Treasury" designation that all tax returns have.
|
On April 15 2020 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 21:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Are you sure you want a social democracy, Biff? Literally all of your posting is consistent with the neoliberal framework of capitalism.
Not trying to judge, just curious. Absolutely. I live in Norway and I find the system here quite ideal. Low inequalities, excellent welfare state and so on and so forth. And within Norway, I vote left. In France I voted Mélenchon twice although to be frank he sickens me, for the exact same reason I am sickened by many Berniebros. Care to tell me how I am a neoliberal capitalist? I am curious of your definition of neoliberalism, though. 99,99% of the time it's used, it's a vague strawman that doesn't encompass anything real at all, used by people who have only very vague ideas of what they are talking about.
Neoliberalism is one of the main forms of capitalism, the one that we see in most countries today. In terms of policies it characterizes itself with austerity, small government and privatizations (general fetishization of the market), and globalization.
But then again, most hard-line liberals already fit in that definition, I guess, so we don't really need a new term for it.
In terms of framework, neoliberalism differentiates itself from social democracy in that in social democracy, a leftist would represent the left and the liberal represents the right. In neoliberalism, there is no more real left and right, there is a leftist party that represents the center left, the center and the center right and a rightwing party that represents the extreme right (the extreme left can fuck off or, alternatively, get yelled at when they don't support the center).
I think this difference is quite key. I think you have clearly adopted the neoliberal framework when you talk about politics. The right are the monsters like Trump, and anyone remotely sensible is a leftist (except the extreme left that are unsound and believe in unicorns). The goal of politics is, according to what you say, to advance the cause of the left. But voting for liberals advances the cause of the left in your view, and some of the elements that are traditionally associated with the left in social democracy (mainly populism and opposition to the system), you find profane.
If I had to diagnose this (and I don't, I'm being a bit of an ass here), I think your misplaced trust in liberal media has caused you to integrate the neoliberal framework for society. Your inclinations are leftist, your preferred policies are not neoliberal, which is why you don't think people should die in the street if they're poor; excellent. But you think about politics in neoliberal terms, when you think of the left and the right, and when you think about what's good or bad for the political future of society.
On April 15 2020 22:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence. Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining. Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win. Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible?
Well I'm happy that I was entertaining. Was I also lying?
It's pretty insulting to normal chess that you think this fairly straightforward scheme I described was 27D chess.
|
On April 15 2020 22:46 maybenexttime wrote:
@DarkPlasmaBall, Gorsameth
I never said it would change the outcome of these primaries. Just that it would make it easier for Progressives to gain momentum over the course of a few election cycles. From what I can tell, one of the main reasons why Biden's win was so one-sided was because the turnout among the young Progressives was so low. If I'm not mistaken, they are apathetic about the primaries because they consider them rigged in favor of the establishment candidate. Regardless of to what degree that is true, I think a two-round election could help alleviate their concerns. Maybe I'm wrong.
And how is a voting system in which a Progressive candidate doesn't have to deal with the DNC playing dirty rigged? I could help, but do you think its actually a possibility to implement? I assume it would require a constitutional amendment or change to an existing amendment so haha gl with that when its against the interests of both Democrats and Republicans.
Bottom line is if Progressives want a bigger say they need to go out and vote and if they want to gain momentum and build a real movement they need to stop trying to cut strait to the Presidency and work more on the local and state level. Get more progressives into the House and Senate so that future proposals have to consider them to get voted through.
|
On April 15 2020 21:54 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +
I would be careful about saying "numbers don't lie" when quoting statistics released from China..
Numbers from any country might have inaccuracies, including the US, but that China is completely destroying the US in how they have handled the damage of the virus is not debatable. The number of infected in the US is also still rising rapidly. The fact he blames the WHO for being "China friendly" when he fucked up this much worse himself almost made me chuckle. I hope all this bridgeburning blows up in his face soon.
I'm not sure how you can use the phrase "not debatable" when using statistics from a country that lies about everything as fast as Trump. I would take those numbers with a gigantic grain of salt and probably add 10x if not more. China, like Trump, has an unbelievably big Napoleon Complex, and is deathly afraid of anyone seeing it as anything but the greatest country on Earth with zero flaws.
It would be more reasonable to compare the death rate with literally any other country, where US's death toll is still ridiculously big and makes it look even more like the third world country that it is when it comes to healthcare.
South Korea was one of the countries that caught it early, and 20% of their population lives in one big city. It should have everything going against it. Yet it only has a staggeringly low 225 deaths from a total of 10591 cases, because they took drastic and immediate actions. Their current daily "new infected" is almost 0.
|
On April 15 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 21:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Are you sure you want a social democracy, Biff? Literally all of your posting is consistent with the neoliberal framework of capitalism.
Not trying to judge, just curious. Absolutely. I live in Norway and I find the system here quite ideal. Low inequalities, excellent welfare state and so on and so forth. And within Norway, I vote left. In France I voted Mélenchon twice although to be frank he sickens me, for the exact same reason I am sickened by many Berniebros. Care to tell me how I am a neoliberal capitalist? I am curious of your definition of neoliberalism, though. 99,99% of the time it's used, it's a vague strawman that doesn't encompass anything real at all, used by people who have only very vague ideas of what they are talking about. Neoliberalism is one of the main forms of capitalism, the one that we see in most countries today. In terms of policies it characterizes itself with austerity, small government and privatizations (general fetishization of the market), and globalization. But then again, most hard-line liberals already fit in that definition, I guess, so we don't really need a new term for it. In terms of framework, neoliberalism differentiates itself from social democracy in that in social democracy, a leftist would represent the left and the liberal represents the right. In neoliberalism, there is no more real left and right, there is a leftist party that represents the center left, the center and the center right and a rightwing party that represents the extreme right (the extreme left can fuck off or, alternatively, get yelled at when they don't support the center). I think this difference is quite key. I think you have clearly adopted the neoliberal framework when you talk about politics. The right are the monsters like Trump, and anyone remotely sensible is a leftist (except the extreme left that are unsound and believe in unicorns). The goal of politics is, according to what you say, to advance the cause of the left. But voting for liberals advances the cause of the left in your view, and some of the elements that are traditionally associated with the left in social democracy (mainly populism and opposition to the system), you find profane. If I had to diagnose this (and I don't, I'm being a bit of an ass here), I think your misplaced trust in liberal media has caused you to integrate the neoliberal framework for society. Your inclinations are leftist, your preffered policies are not neoliberal, which is why you don't think people should die in the street if they're poor; excellent. But you think about politics in neoliberal terms, when you think of the left and the right, and when you think about what's good or bad for the political future of society. Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 22:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence. Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining. Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win. Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible? Well I'm happy that I was entertaining. Was I also lying? It's pretty insulting to normal chess that you think this fairly straightforward scheme I described was 27D chess.
That's an interesting home definition of neoliberalism you made there. I don't really see how it applies to people and especially not to me but whatever.
So to clarify, I believe that:
1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for.
2. Politics is about compromises, coalition building and about listening to each other. Liberal and progressives have basically the same goal at least in the frame of what can be achieved. It's just that liberals are about taking stuff step by step and progressive want radical changes. I believe we need both. And they need to fucking work together. Want it or not, no liberal will ever be elected without progressive votes, and no progressive will be elected without convincing the liberals.
3. I loath populism. Anyone who pretend having the monopoly of representing "the people" and describes his opponents as not-so-real-people makes me sick. That's why I find so pathetic to call consent manufacturing your failure to convince people.
4. I think the US is fucked up because of its culture. And it's gonna take decades if not centuries to change. Meanwhile all I hope for is that it gets a bit better and doesn't end up being a southern style, white supremacist inspired authoritarian dystopia. Which, let's be clear, is the path it's taking.
Now if you want to call me neoliberal because of some vague home made notion that when I prefer a centrist to some kind of neo-confederate madman and that I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left, I am a minion of some sinister neo capitalist new world order, feel free, I don't mind. Neoliberalism means something (Thatcherian / Reaganian politics, basically), the rest is just mumbo jumbo that has the same value that other fashionable concepts like "globalists" and so on.
|
On April 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2020 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 21:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Are you sure you want a social democracy, Biff? Literally all of your posting is consistent with the neoliberal framework of capitalism.
Not trying to judge, just curious. Absolutely. I live in Norway and I find the system here quite ideal. Low inequalities, excellent welfare state and so on and so forth. And within Norway, I vote left. In France I voted Mélenchon twice although to be frank he sickens me, for the exact same reason I am sickened by many Berniebros. Care to tell me how I am a neoliberal capitalist? I am curious of your definition of neoliberalism, though. 99,99% of the time it's used, it's a vague strawman that doesn't encompass anything real at all, used by people who have only very vague ideas of what they are talking about. Neoliberalism is one of the main forms of capitalism, the one that we see in most countries today. In terms of policies it characterizes itself with austerity, small government and privatizations (general fetishization of the market), and globalization. But then again, most hard-line liberals already fit in that definition, I guess, so we don't really need a new term for it. In terms of framework, neoliberalism differentiates itself from social democracy in that in social democracy, a leftist would represent the left and the liberal represents the right. In neoliberalism, there is no more real left and right, there is a leftist party that represents the center left, the center and the center right and a rightwing party that represents the extreme right (the extreme left can fuck off or, alternatively, get yelled at when they don't support the center). I think this difference is quite key. I think you have clearly adopted the neoliberal framework when you talk about politics. The right are the monsters like Trump, and anyone remotely sensible is a leftist (except the extreme left that are unsound and believe in unicorns). The goal of politics is, according to what you say, to advance the cause of the left. But voting for liberals advances the cause of the left in your view, and some of the elements that are traditionally associated with the left in social democracy (mainly populism and opposition to the system), you find profane. If I had to diagnose this (and I don't, I'm being a bit of an ass here), I think your misplaced trust in liberal media has caused you to integrate the neoliberal framework for society. Your inclinations are leftist, your preffered policies are not neoliberal, which is why you don't think people should die in the street if they're poor; excellent. But you think about politics in neoliberal terms, when you think of the left and the right, and when you think about what's good or bad for the political future of society. On April 15 2020 22:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence. Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining. Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win. Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible? Well I'm happy that I was entertaining. Was I also lying? It's pretty insulting to normal chess that you think this fairly straightforward scheme I described was 27D chess. That's an interesting home definition of neoliberalism you made there. I don't really see how it applies to people and especially not to me but whatever. So to clarify, I believe that: 1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for. 2. Politics is about compromises, coalition building and about listening to each other. Liberal and progressives have basically the same goal at least in the frame of what can be achieved. It's just that liberals are about taking stuff step by step and progressive want radical changes. I believe we need both. And they need to fucking work together. Want it or not, no liberal will ever be elected without progressive votes, and no progressive will be elected without convincing the liberals. 3. I loath populism. Anyone who pretend having the monopoly of representing "the people" and describes his opponents as not-so-real-people makes me sick. That's why I find so pathetic to call consent manufacturing your failure to convince people. 4. I think the US is fucked up because of its culture. And it's gonna take decades if not centuries to change. Meanwhile all I hope for is that it gets a bit better and doesn't end up being a southern style, white supremacist inspired authoritarian dystopia. Which, let's be clear, is the path it's taking. Now if you want to call me neoliberal because of some vague home made notion that when I prefer a centrist to some kind of neo-confederate madman and that I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left, I am a minion of some sinister neo capitalist new world order, feel free, I don't mind. Neoliberalism means something (Thatcherian / Reaganian politics, basically), the rest is just mumbo jumbo that has the same value that other fashionable concepts like "globalists" and so on.
Oh man, and you call progressives naive, "politics is about getting things done!" I guess you dont follow US politics or you'd realize that politics in this country is actually about not getting anything done. If you think Biden or Obama are important to "getting things done" then you're nuts.
Democrats have loved supporting the types of candidates that try and play "get things done" politics with Republicans, except Republicans don't play that game, so all we get is "concede to the Republicans" politics. Your candidates get shit done all right, they get Republican stuff done! Yeah, definitely moving the country forward, yeah, one hundred percent FOR SUUUUUUURE.
The only way American politics will ever make ANYTHING happen is if one party gets control over literally all branches of government for multiple straight terms, and Democrats have been really shitty about their mid term elections overall (let alone the way the system is designed to favor the power of the Republican states in the Senate) so odds are we're not going to see a Democrat swing in the senate any time soon.
So I do so look forward to all of that nothing that happens, oh wait, I misspoke, Im sorry, I look forward to all of that nothing but the occasional Republican bill being passed.
Your "compromise" and "gettin' things done!" is so out dated it hurts. For someone with the opinion that the US is going to become a redneck hellscape you seem to love the rhetoric thats letting is slide down that route.
|
On April 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2020 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 21:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Are you sure you want a social democracy, Biff? Literally all of your posting is consistent with the neoliberal framework of capitalism.
Not trying to judge, just curious. Absolutely. I live in Norway and I find the system here quite ideal. Low inequalities, excellent welfare state and so on and so forth. And within Norway, I vote left. In France I voted Mélenchon twice although to be frank he sickens me, for the exact same reason I am sickened by many Berniebros. Care to tell me how I am a neoliberal capitalist? I am curious of your definition of neoliberalism, though. 99,99% of the time it's used, it's a vague strawman that doesn't encompass anything real at all, used by people who have only very vague ideas of what they are talking about. Neoliberalism is one of the main forms of capitalism, the one that we see in most countries today. In terms of policies it characterizes itself with austerity, small government and privatizations (general fetishization of the market), and globalization. But then again, most hard-line liberals already fit in that definition, I guess, so we don't really need a new term for it. In terms of framework, neoliberalism differentiates itself from social democracy in that in social democracy, a leftist would represent the left and the liberal represents the right. In neoliberalism, there is no more real left and right, there is a leftist party that represents the center left, the center and the center right and a rightwing party that represents the extreme right (the extreme left can fuck off or, alternatively, get yelled at when they don't support the center). I think this difference is quite key. I think you have clearly adopted the neoliberal framework when you talk about politics. The right are the monsters like Trump, and anyone remotely sensible is a leftist (except the extreme left that are unsound and believe in unicorns). The goal of politics is, according to what you say, to advance the cause of the left. But voting for liberals advances the cause of the left in your view, and some of the elements that are traditionally associated with the left in social democracy (mainly populism and opposition to the system), you find profane. If I had to diagnose this (and I don't, I'm being a bit of an ass here), I think your misplaced trust in liberal media has caused you to integrate the neoliberal framework for society. Your inclinations are leftist, your preffered policies are not neoliberal, which is why you don't think people should die in the street if they're poor; excellent. But you think about politics in neoliberal terms, when you think of the left and the right, and when you think about what's good or bad for the political future of society. On April 15 2020 22:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence. Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining. Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win. Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible? Well I'm happy that I was entertaining. Was I also lying? It's pretty insulting to normal chess that you think this fairly straightforward scheme I described was 27D chess. That's an interesting home definition of neoliberalism you made there. I don't really see how it applies to people and especially not to me but whatever. So to clarify, I believe that: 1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for. 2. Politics is about compromises, coalition building and about listening to each other. Liberal and progressives have basically the same goal at least in the frame of what can be achieved. It's just that liberals are about taking stuff step by step and progressive want radical changes. I believe we need both. And they need to fucking work together. Want it or not, no liberal will ever be elected without progressive votes, and no progressive will be elected without convincing the liberals. 3. I loath populism. Anyone who pretend having the monopoly of representing "the people" and describes his opponents as not-so-real-people makes me sick. That's why I find so pathetic to call consent manufacturing your failure to convince people. 4. I think the US is fucked up because of its culture. And it's gonna take decades if not centuries to change. Meanwhile all I hope for is that it gets a bit better and doesn't end up being a southern style, white supremacist inspired authoritarian dystopia. Which, let's be clear, is the path it's taking. Now if you want to call me neoliberal because of some vague home made notion that when I prefer a centrist to some kind of neo-confederate madman and that I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left, I am a minion of some sinister neo capitalist new world order, feel free, I don't mind. Neoliberalism means something (Thatcherian / Reaganian politics, basically), the rest is just mumbo jumbo that has the same value that other fashionable concepts like "globalists" and so on.
Home definition of neoliberalism? What kind of criticism is that? Are you implying that it's a wrong definition? If so I'd like to see your work, rather than this snide remark. Let me show you how this can work:
That's an interesting home definition of populism that you have here. Here are my problems with it: it is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of populism, that talks of representing the people only in the sense of representing the common folk against the elite, not in the sense that everyone agrees with us and if you don't you aren't real people. Another issue is that you switch from a policy standpoint to an identity standpoint. Just because there are people who aren't part of the elite and who are against these policies doesn't make it untrue that those policies are better for the common folk, in the same way that the existence of black republicans doesn't disprove that socially liberal policies are better for black people in general.
Politics is not about compromises, politics is about winning. We see that you know this subconsciously when we look at how you approach other political topics, like for example racism. You don't go "Hey, I think we shouldn't treat people worse because of their race, you guys think we should, let's compromise and treat them worse only in some respects!", you go "Fuck you, racism is wrong, we shouldn't do racism". That is good, that is the correct thing to do.
Even on this specific subject, you don't want to compromise, you want one specific group to compromise with another group. If Biden doesn't do anything to compromise with the left in an attempt to earn their votes, you're not going to hold it against him. It's okay if he doesn't want to compromise. It's only wrong when we don't. We can see that, whether you realize it or not, you apply "compromise" unequally and with a specific direction. It is a talking point that you picked up, presumably in the liberal media while they were manufacturing consent. But the liberal media uses it specifically to shame leftists into voting for liberals, and in no other cases. Same as unity: it's a weapon, not an argument.
"I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left" is an important statement when it comes to social democracy and neoliberalism. In the social democratic framework, liberals ARE the enemy of the left. It's not my opinion, it's an historical fact, the main political opposition in social democracies was always that of the left vs the right, the left being represented by a leftist and the right being represented by a liberal. When you oppose that, for reasons that are unclear to me, you by definition favor the framework of neoliberalism.
Reaganian politics are at the start of neoliberalism in the US (well, Carter first, but whatevs). Clinton then adopts those politics and then pretty soon they engulf both parties' whole vision of economics. Same happens in Europe, not everywhere at the same rate (for example you can argue that it's only really happening in France right now with Macron). Ultimately the main factor was the fall of the USSR weakening all of the leftist parties worldwide, and leftist parties and leftist boomers moving to the center economically as a result of this. Even the leftist parties who didn't go full neoliberal, like the ones in France before Macron and in Switzerland, still moved to the center - I don't know the history of those in Scandinavia but I'd be surprised to learn it wasn't the same. We're still feeling the effects of this today.
|
AOC has endorsed Biden as well.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
I want to link the political compass of the 2020 candidates. It should help identify why some people think the difference between Trump and Biden is minor. It uses more of a global scale for economics, with a separate axis for authoritarian/libertarian principles (in the classic sense - US libertarian candidates are actually much closer to authoritarians than classic libertarianism). (The writings on the PC tend to be very left wing, but their analysis of the candidates seems right to me).
The center economic line is pure balanced socialism, far left being pure communism/anarchism, far right being corporatocracy/anarcho-capitalism (depending on authoritarianism levels).
Economically, they're pretty close if you're fairly far on the left side of the divide (like I am, and I'm assuming GH and others are). For instance, the current coronavirus stimulus would have been very close to what I would have expected from a Biden with a GOP or perfectly split congress (Democrats on average are further to the left than he is, so a pure dem congress would likely perform better).
Corruption etc. means that like 25% of it is going to run off into the wild and never be seen again, but Biden would still have some amount go out to his corporate donors (though not so blatantly as Trump will do).
Trump's authoritarian tendencies bother me enough that I'll vote for Biden (as does his ineptness and corruption), but economically they're not going to operate very differently. I don't actually expect Biden to personally be more competent than Trump (they both seem to be going senile), but the average Dem appointee is miles ahead of the average GOP one for governance. Of course, I also live in a swing state (OH), so my vote matters. In CA, there's really no point to NOT sending a protest vote for the average leftist.
If a person thinks that most of the issues in the US are caused by having drifted incredibly far right on economic matters, Biden isn't the person to oversee a drift back left, as his views/governance on the issue is unlikely to be very different than Trumps. He'll roll back the corporate tax rates to where they were and put some of the regulations back into place.
Visa a vis the DNC rigging the primaries - they didn't. They did, however, introduce unprecedented pressure to get EVERY moderate to drop out besides Biden, right before super tuesday. If not for that move, then Bernie would likely be ahead. Every moderate dropping out sent a signal to democratic voters that the party had picked Biden, and a majority of democratic voters were fine with that choice.
|
The thing to me, that a lot of people seem to continually forget, is the homogenous nature of the countries being compared to the US, including the location to other socialism leaning countries and populations contained within. I wouldn't mind if we moved further left in the US, but you're herding cats into a shower at this point. Now that the genpop of the US has been successfully (albeit, failing to be nominated for the presidency) exposed to socialism/democractic socialism, it'll gain in popular opinion in the coming elections.
But as someone above stated, shooting straight for the presidency isn't going to get you the coalition you need. Local and state levels affect you more. Start there and it'll grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
