EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2556
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24145 Posts
On August 12 2020 10:25 Zambrah wrote: She probably appeals to boomers because she's a status quo candidate and boy howdy if they aren't enjoying their status quo. Probably a wash in that her defense against being far left is the stuff that Trump supporters will reference to defend Trump against his support of police and other racist policy that Democrats made people like Harris support if they wanted to rise in the party. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
From a progressive point of vieuw it would probably be best if trump wins,4 years of biden wont change anything. It will be the same old catering to the big donors and corporate america as every president ever. The next 4 years are going to be pretty bad in general i expect and the party that wins now will surely lose in 2024. If biden now loses then harris is probably also out as a candidate for 2024 and then maybe a real progressive candidate can finally win (though most likely not. The core of usa politics,it will never ever change. As said before,the progressive part of politics would be best of starting their own movement. Eventually everyone will be so fed up with the status quo that they will have a chance). Biden will win i think (since that kinda is the safest outcome long term for the american establishment),but it is pretty close and the gap will probably keep getting smaller towards november. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
| ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On August 12 2020 10:26 JimmiC wrote: How many people will actually look into policy and so on. I wonder what level of engagement your average TL poster is. Probably falls in like the 98th percentile or something. It will likely be progressive enough for many that he picked a strong woman of colour. And is she not also the first person with Asian heritage to VP. Things like this might mean more to people voting, especially the older ones. Edit:as corsair pointed out. Under the level of engagement of an average qanon believer unfortunatly | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On August 12 2020 10:25 Zambrah wrote: She probably appeals to boomers because she's a status quo candidate and boy howdy if they aren't enjoying their status quo. Status quo is Trump, at the moment. And the boomers elected him. | ||
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
On August 13 2020 00:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: Status quo is Trump, at the moment. And the boomers elected him. I get you're not American, but it's this type of delusional thinking that helps get Trump elected. It's not a "those darn Boomers" problem. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24145 Posts
On August 13 2020 00:07 mierin wrote: I get you're not American, but it's this type of delusional thinking that helps get Trump elected. It's not a "those darn Boomers" problem. Same goes with attempts to place the entirety of decades of bipartisan status quo policy on Trump/Republicans or painting his rhetoric/delivery as a substantive and radical departure from typical bipartisan but Republican favored policy. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27219 Posts
On August 13 2020 00:00 Biff The Understudy wrote: Status quo is Trump, at the moment. And the boomers elected him. Despite being the incumbent, I don’t think 4 years is quite enough time to status quo-ify Trump. I mean his main shtick and appeal was as a fuck you to the status quo and various norms. Rhetoric around him sticking it to the coastal elites or whatever hasn’t appreciably changed. The appeal of a Biden or a Harris is a return to the status quo and the politics of normality and theoretical civility, hence you see Obama invoked a fair amount as some halcyon days one needs to get back to. The progressives/the actual left aren’t in any particular enthusiastic rush to return to the status quo either, didn’t exactly do us many favours | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 13 2020 00:17 Wombat_NI wrote: Despite being the incumbent, I don’t think 4 years is quite enough time to status quo-ify Trump. I mean his main shtick and appeal was as a fuck you to the status quo and various norms. Rhetoric around him sticking it to the coastal elites or whatever hasn’t appreciably changed. The appeal of a Biden or a Harris is a return to the status quo and the politics of normality and theoretical civility, hence you see Obama invoked a fair amount as some halcyon days one needs to get back to. The progressives/the actual left aren’t in any particular enthusiastic rush to return to the status quo either, didn’t exactly do us many favours A return to the status quo and the politics of normality while running as fast as they can from their records on past status quos and politics of normality eg. Biden's efforts to pass the "Superpredators" Clinton-era crime bill that sent so many minorities to jail for minor offenses, and Kamala's efforts as DA to send minorities with drug offenses and truant kids to prison. I think Obama set the stage for what will really happen to the status quo if elected. He said the filibuster was a Jim Crow relic and wanted it scrapped if it stops Democratic legislation. Let me predict: the status quo, only in so much as it relates to messages or the talk part of the presidency, but major deviations from the status quo mostly in the direction progressives want. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The current filibuster has nothing to do with the historical filibuster. As recently as the 50s, when we wanted a filibuster, people stood up and talked for them and got overriden when they had to sleep (see Strom Thurmand). Now they just signal intent and kill the bill, per 1975 revisions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27219 Posts
On August 13 2020 01:44 Danglars wrote: A return to the status quo and the politics of normality while running as fast as they can from their records on past status quos and politics of normality eg. Biden's efforts to pass the "Superpredators" Clinton-era crime bill that sent so many minorities to jail for minor offenses, and Kamala's efforts as DA to send minorities with drug offenses and truant kids to prison. I think Obama set the stage for what will really happen to the status quo if elected. He said the filibuster was a Jim Crow relic and wanted it scrapped if it stops Democratic legislation. Let me predict: the status quo, only in so much as it relates to messages or the talk part of the presidency, but major deviations from the status quo mostly in the direction progressives want. I’d largely agree with that characterisation bar ‘mostly in the direction progressives want’. As for the filibuster, it’s a mechanism in theory I have no huge problem with, but once the fragile convention that governs its use is discarded it becomes a very problematic one. In any and all directions. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 13 2020 02:09 Nevuk wrote: Filibuster isn't a jim crow relic. I have no idea why Obama said that. Maybe the historical one? The current filibuster has nothing to do with the historical filibuster. As recently as the 50s, when we wanted a filibuster, people stood up and talked for them and got overriden when they had to sleep (see Strom Thurmand). Now they just signal intent and kill the bill, per 1975 revisions. I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 13 2020 02:32 Wombat_NI wrote: I’d largely agree with that characterisation bar ‘mostly in the direction progressives want’. As for the filibuster, it’s a mechanism in theory I have no huge problem with, but once the fragile convention that governs its use is discarded it becomes a very problematic one. In any and all directions. The only real return to norms I see is the norms of presidential address, bureaucratic norms like interagency process, and other presidential messaging. I hear enough talk of packing the court (Kamala), killing the filibuster, changing the relationship between government and health insurance to conclude it isn’t really about restoring norms. It’s just restoring the norms certain left and center-left people think are worth restoring, and destroying others, which is a different matter entirely. The debatable ones as far as norms are electoral college and domestic surveillance of political opponents. The electoral college is a pipe dream, but some people want that norm dead. The domestic surveillance bit may he regretted now, since Biden knows it means Trump could lie to FISA courts to wiretap his campaign staff. Not really a norm per se, since it was Obama-era, but it was still Biden who was involved regarding Hatch act pretexts. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On August 13 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote: I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. Well, that's a huge part of it. It's not even remotely physically possible to actually filibuster as many things as senators have signaled their intent to since 1975. Once you remove the only weakness of a tactic, it will be the dominant one. Before 1975, it very rarely prevented a bill from actually passing. It signaled that the senator felt very strongly about it and wanted a longer period of debate (or to just grandstand for PR). It moved it from a strategy for individuals or small blocs to delay a vote to one an entire party can use to prevent votes. The 1975 rules change made that inevitable. If you look at the first usage, in 1841, it had to do with a very controversial topic (not slavery - the US bank). It worked because it convinced people to side with him, not because it kept the vote from happening. It's a large part of why congress started bundling bills into larger and larger groups and taking fewer and fewer votes. I don't really think abolishing the filibuster is notably better for one party or the other: I think it's better for the american people that congress be able to actually pass laws. FWIW, even Madison and Hamilton both agreed that it's an awful idea to require a super majority to pass bills (which is what the current filibuster is): Hamilton: To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22487 Posts
On August 13 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote: The fact you couldn't just filibuster anything and everything was, imo, a pretty integral part of it. By just needing to signal intent doing anything requires a 2/3 majority because there is a big chance someone somewhere does not agree with it enough to declare a filibuster.I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. removing the endurance changes it from a very special thing for something you care passionately about and doesn't permanently stop anything into 'everything requires a super majority'. | ||
| ||
