|
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 July 28 2020 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 01:34 Sadist wrote:On July 28 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 01:21 Sadist wrote:On July 27 2020 23:23 LegalLord wrote:On July 27 2020 21:11 Sadist wrote:On July 27 2020 17:07 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly, anyone who watched the last few Democratic primaries and still insists that the non party favorite candidate was given a fair shake... I’m not sure what to say. It was very clearly not the case.
Whether or not they would have ultimately won in a fair contest is another question, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to call whatever that primary was “fair.” And especially to do so two presidential cycles in a row. Can you be more specific? Is this like calling California for Bernie late? Kind of, but that feels like an example chosen to be asinine while relevant. Targeted unfavorable media coverage, incompetence that is weirdly systematically to Bernie's detriment, and generally a candidate crowd that tactically acted to screw Bernie over (at the South Carolina primary). Sure, Bernie voters ultimately failed to show up in the numbers they needed to, but primaries are exceedingly volatile and a conspiracy against a candidate will have a strong material difference to their support. Yes, he probably would have still lost, but it's not good to be an enabler for "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" from the Democrats. I'm sure a lot of what happened could be chalked up to, "well that's not proof!" if you really want to. Which is true. But it certainly is a very convenient set of coincidences that seem entirely in line with the generously provided-by-Russia "proof" from last time of a clear anti-Bernie conspiracy within the DNC. You'd really have to be willfully ignorant not to see the exact same game at play this time around. I can see how it can appear slimy but to me this is nothing like 2016 with the caucusing and super delegates. The Media coverage of Bernie is not really the DNCs resp. The candidates pulling out as to not split the vote is not that unusual either. I wanted Bernie to win and voted for him in the Mich primary but he got destroyed. I see vague references to the DNC being dumb for choosing Biden and being corrupt etc but I think all of those posts are kinda meaningless. Biden won on votes not by any superdelegates or anything like that. Hes who the bulk of the party chose in the systen we have so Im not sure how the DNC is at fault for anything. Who did the DNC/AP say won Iowa (the first contest in their primary)? When people answer that question, they should see one of the most blatant and undeniable examples. As LL points out, whether it ultimately changes the nominee is tangential to how easily Democrats moved on from a clearly botched election contest in Iowa to start the nomination process. Iowa was a mess but Biden didnt win it so I dont see the big deal. Democrats ignored a botched election where the wrong winner was called by the state party (but not most respectable publications) and you don't see the problem looking toward November? Show nested quote +they will certainly win the day they have a majority of americans agreeing with their ideas, which is not the case yet but might be sometimes soon.
More Democrats agree with Bernie's ideas (as does the entire developed world pretty much), but the political system we have has convinced them (accurately or not) they have to vote for who they think will win (boy were they wrong in 2016) instead of the person that best represents their ideals. This was obvious during the primary when one of the few things people agreed on was that Biden sucked relative to the rest of the field.
I chalk Iowa up to incompetence rather than Malice. Theres a difference to me.
|
It seems to me that some posters here have a hard time accepting that the US voters would much rather have a centre president than a (far) left one.
|
On July 28 2020 01:55 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 01:34 Sadist wrote:On July 28 2020 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 01:21 Sadist wrote:On July 27 2020 23:23 LegalLord wrote:On July 27 2020 21:11 Sadist wrote:On July 27 2020 17:07 LegalLord wrote:
Honestly, anyone who watched the last few Democratic primaries and still insists that the non party favorite candidate was given a fair shake... I’m not sure what to say. It was very clearly not the case.
Whether or not they would have ultimately won in a fair contest is another question, but it takes some serious cognitive dissonance to call whatever that primary was “fair.” And especially to do so two presidential cycles in a row. Can you be more specific? Is this like calling California for Bernie late? Kind of, but that feels like an example chosen to be asinine while relevant. Targeted unfavorable media coverage, incompetence that is weirdly systematically to Bernie's detriment, and generally a candidate crowd that tactically acted to screw Bernie over (at the South Carolina primary). Sure, Bernie voters ultimately failed to show up in the numbers they needed to, but primaries are exceedingly volatile and a conspiracy against a candidate will have a strong material difference to their support. Yes, he probably would have still lost, but it's not good to be an enabler for "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" from the Democrats. I'm sure a lot of what happened could be chalked up to, "well that's not proof!" if you really want to. Which is true. But it certainly is a very convenient set of coincidences that seem entirely in line with the generously provided-by-Russia "proof" from last time of a clear anti-Bernie conspiracy within the DNC. You'd really have to be willfully ignorant not to see the exact same game at play this time around. I can see how it can appear slimy but to me this is nothing like 2016 with the caucusing and super delegates. The Media coverage of Bernie is not really the DNCs resp. The candidates pulling out as to not split the vote is not that unusual either. I wanted Bernie to win and voted for him in the Mich primary but he got destroyed. I see vague references to the DNC being dumb for choosing Biden and being corrupt etc but I think all of those posts are kinda meaningless. Biden won on votes not by any superdelegates or anything like that. Hes who the bulk of the party chose in the systen we have so Im not sure how the DNC is at fault for anything. Who did the DNC/AP say won Iowa (the first contest in their primary)? When people answer that question, they should see one of the most blatant and undeniable examples. As LL points out, whether it ultimately changes the nominee is tangential to how easily Democrats moved on from a clearly botched election contest in Iowa to start the nomination process. Iowa was a mess but Biden didnt win it so I dont see the big deal. Democrats ignored a botched election where the wrong winner was called by the state party (but not most respectable publications) and you don't see the problem looking toward November? they will certainly win the day they have a majority of americans agreeing with their ideas, which is not the case yet but might be sometimes soon.
More Democrats agree with Bernie's ideas (as does the entire developed world pretty much), but the political system we have has convinced them (accurately or not) they have to vote for who they think will win (boy were they wrong in 2016) instead of the person that best represents their ideals. This was obvious during the primary when one of the few things people agreed on was that Biden sucked relative to the rest of the field. I chalk Iowa up to incompetence rather than Malice. Theres a difference to me.
I'm sure Republicans can work with that excuse.
"Fraud-u-lect's bungling of counting votes and declaring Trump the winner was merely incompetence, not malice. There's no need for an investigation and this botched election can't be undone either Democrats (You remember Iowa?). Sure polling says people prefer Biden's policy over Trump's, but the votes (that we choose to acknowledge) don't".
Or they could go with:
"Democrats gave an election victory to someone who didn't win in Iowa. Here they go again..."
On July 28 2020 01:58 Sr18 wrote:
It seems to me that some posters here have a hard time accepting that the US voters would much rather have a centre president than a (far) left one.
Even if that were the case, the pressing issue is the whole part about centrists leading us into an increasingly unavoidable and unmitigated global ecological collapse with the justification that it's better than that+overt white nationalism. That the former sorta segregationist is who we're supposed to vote for to stop white nationalism is just a bonus.
|
You don't understand the centrist position. It's not just that it's better than the white supremasist alternative, it's that it's better than all alternatives. That's why people vote for it repeatedly. They want it, because it is the best option available. Not perfect by any stretch, but realistic and better than anything else available. Want to change that? Then make your preferred utopion vision actually realistically obtainable.
|
hot take: politician has a change of heart and policies. more at 6.
|
On July 28 2020 01:58 Sr18 wrote:
It seems to me that some posters here have a hard time accepting that the US voters would much rather have a centre president than a (far) left one.
I mean, US voters also elected a far right president instead of a centre president. And the US could really use someone who is "far left" there, because that is just a normal centrist social democrat anywhere else.
|
|
|
I think you will see an actual left of center person lead them dems in a couple of election cycles.
I honestly don't see what comfort people get from this? It'll be much too little and much too late to make any significant inroads at staving off (or functionally mitigating) the ecological catastrophe the scientific community has been warning us about and Oil and Gas companies have known about (and pumping out propaganda against) for decades.
This isn't chicken little panic or radical left-wing propaganda, this is the scientific consensus built on basically a century of observations and research.
If it was as simple as not getting my political preference I wouldn't care nearly as much (especially if we had the stuff virtually every developed country has like paid sick leave, child care, college, etc.).
|
That's a separate issue than having a left leaning president in office. If the entire world minus the US takes care of their business in regards to the environment, where would that put us in terms of staving off your apocalyptic scenario?
|
|
|
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now.
|
On July 28 2020 03:50 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:I think you will see an actual left of center person lead them dems in a couple of election cycles. I honestly don't see what comfort people get from this? It'll be much too little and much too late to make any significant inroads at staving off (or functionally mitigating) the ecological catastrophe the scientific community has been warning us about and Oil and Gas companies have known about (and pumping out propaganda against) for decades. This isn't chicken little panic or radical left-wing propaganda, this is the scientific consensus built on basically a century of observations and research. If it was as simple as not getting my political preference I wouldn't care nearly as much (especially if we had the stuff virtually every developed country has like paid sick leave, child care, college, etc.). The problem is that it is the only thing that might. Your revolution you have admitted you have no idea how it would actually work. Not to mention current TM socialist countries are even worse for the environment and listening to scientists. The best thing to do is make waves at the local level and this is why you see a lot of movement on the circular city front. There are some American cities doing great things for the planet. I mean your argument that the only thing that will save the planet is a political system no one knows how to implement with it actually working to help people instead of making it worse, is akin to the only thing that will save us is cold fusion. Right now both are far fetched fantasies. The actual TM socialist countries that exist and have existed are horrible for their people, their environment and basically everything other than those few in charge. And until someone comes up with why they have been such epic failures and how this time is going to be different. You are never going to get any traction. There is a reason that Hong Kong is fighting tooth and nail for their democracy and there is a reason that millions fleeing Venezuela and millions have fled Cuba. LM socialism does not work for the people, it works for those in power. Anyone old enough to be aware during the USSR and it's failing knows this. And anyone who pays attention to the genocide that the Chinese government is perpetrating and so much of the world is ignoring can see it has done nothing to give ownership to the people. About the best thing LM socialism has accomplished is 100% literacy since it highly values its people being able to read its propaganda.
Meanwhile in the US they prefer to sabotage the educational system and have them watch fox news. So much better.
|
On July 28 2020 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now.
Part of the problem with middling centrism is that it was so easy for Trump to undo decades of their progress with a stroke of his pen, because he's not so timid.
EDIT: Also, as everyone agrees, this middling centrism is conservative as hell compared to other developed nations. You can easily be labeled an unrealistic radical for suggesting the primary obstacle between us and things like healthcare, child care, sick leave, parental leave, etc is our masochistic relationship with capitalism that even other primarily capitalist countries have recognized has to be mitigated with robust social nets the US is no where near implementing.
|
|
|
Re:GH/Biff
They didn’t have a majority of politicians (representatives) that actually supported this stuff, so Obama and others did it through the stroke of a pen and lawsuits within the courts.
I think it was ripe for removal, and reducing regulation was a small balance in the positives of the Trump administration.
I do agree that based on the lefty consensus on how much time we have left to avert disaster, the support for the Bernie/Green New Deal types makes more logical sense.
|
On July 28 2020 04:14 Danglars wrote:
Re:GH/Biff
They didn’t have a majority of politicians (representatives) that actually supported this stuff, so Obama and others did it through the stroke of a pen and lawsuits within the courts.
I think it was ripe for removal, and reducing regulation was a small balance in the positives of the Trump administration.
I do agree that based on the lefty consensus on how much time we have left to avert disaster, the support for the Bernie/Green New Deal types makes more logical sense.
It's not a lefty consensus, it's a sciency consensus. With which everyone except pockets of populist hard right around the globe has rallied to.
|
On July 28 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now. Part of the problem with middling centrism is that it was so easy for Trump to undo decades of their progress with a stroke of his pen, because he's not so timid. EDIT: Also, as everyone agrees, this middling centrism is conservative as hell compared to other developed nations. You can easily be labeled an unrealistic radical for suggesting the primary obstacle between us and things like healthcare, child care, sick leave, parental leave, etc is our masochistic relationship with capitalism that even other primarily capitalist countries have recognized has to be mitigated with robust social nets the US is no where near implementing.
Why don't you read that?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration
And let us be clear - I agree that it's not enough; no one on the planet is doing enough. But I can make the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward.
|
On July 28 2020 05:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now. Part of the problem with middling centrism is that it was so easy for Trump to undo decades of their progress with a stroke of his pen, because he's not so timid. EDIT: Also, as everyone agrees, this middling centrism is conservative as hell compared to other developed nations. You can easily be labeled an unrealistic radical for suggesting the primary obstacle between us and things like healthcare, child care, sick leave, parental leave, etc is our masochistic relationship with capitalism that even other primarily capitalist countries have recognized has to be mitigated with robust social nets the US is no where near implementing. Why don't you read that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administrationAnd let us be clear - I agree that it's not enough; no one on the planet is doing enough. But I can make the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward.
why?
Of course it's not enough, it's a pitiful pittance compared to what we just gave wall street just the last few months. It's practically nothing on the scale necessary.
That's while denying funding for remotely adequate PPE gear for nurses and teachers. Meanwhile we have fully decked out jackboots filling the streets with lung irritants amid a lung focused pandemic and dumping "less lethal" ammo into grandma's forehead, pelting journalists, and permanently disfiguring people.
Even if Biden manages to pull this off, we'll be right back here 4 years from now talking about how we have to support some other terrible candidate to stave off the Cruz-Kasich (he'll have credibility after speaking at the Dem convention lol)-Trump clan Hydra demon
|
On July 28 2020 05:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now. Part of the problem with middling centrism is that it was so easy for Trump to undo decades of their progress with a stroke of his pen, because he's not so timid. EDIT: Also, as everyone agrees, this middling centrism is conservative as hell compared to other developed nations. You can easily be labeled an unrealistic radical for suggesting the primary obstacle between us and things like healthcare, child care, sick leave, parental leave, etc is our masochistic relationship with capitalism that even other primarily capitalist countries have recognized has to be mitigated with robust social nets the US is no where near implementing. Why don't you read that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administrationAnd let us be clear - I agree that it's not enough; no one on the planet is doing enough. But I can make the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward.
What is the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward when we're on a timer and the stakes are the survival of the human race as we know it?
|
On July 28 2020 06:05 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2020 05:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 28 2020 04:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2020 03:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's also quite ironic considering the absolute mountains of environmental regulations from the Obama administration Trump is scrapping down right now. Part of the problem with middling centrism is that it was so easy for Trump to undo decades of their progress with a stroke of his pen, because he's not so timid. EDIT: Also, as everyone agrees, this middling centrism is conservative as hell compared to other developed nations. You can easily be labeled an unrealistic radical for suggesting the primary obstacle between us and things like healthcare, child care, sick leave, parental leave, etc is our masochistic relationship with capitalism that even other primarily capitalist countries have recognized has to be mitigated with robust social nets the US is no where near implementing. Why don't you read that? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administrationAnd let us be clear - I agree that it's not enough; no one on the planet is doing enough. But I can make the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward. What is the difference between a step forward and ten steps backward when we're on a timer and the stakes are the survival of the human race as we know it?
The difference is about 11 steps in the correct direction, so 11 steps closer to the goal. I also find that many things build momentum by going in the correct direction. 1 step in the correct direction can make it much easier to take step #2 and so on rather than having to constantly retread the same ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
