|
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 August 21 2020 06:25 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 05:58 Nevuk wrote:On August 21 2020 05:34 JimmiC wrote:
I'm really unsure what about this is new or shocking. Pelosi is a 80 year old moderate Democrat. She is going to put her support behind similar Democrats. Now if there are enough progressive voters it won't matter, and how many progressive voters are going to be swayed by Pelosi?
It is a nothing burger story trying to make something mundane dramatic, and it is not at all surprising that the only people who think it is a big deal are the people who hate the Dems the most.
If the Dem's don't take the money and fight the Reps you will say how they are too weak and blah blah. If they do then they are evil. They have absolutely zero chance of ever making you happy.
It's a big story because it's massively hypocritical and they aren't taking the big money to fight republicans : they're taking it to fight less conservative democrats. 5000 seems like chump change. Is there more than the story indicates? I mean Chuck Schumer is supporting Malarkey and helped him raise funds as did Pelosi before Kennedy ran. That people disagree on who is best should not come as a surprise.
She threatened House members who endorsed challengers, and then proceeded to do it herself.
The DCCC also has a policy that vendors who work with primary challengers will be blacklisted. This was part of a strategy to prevent primary challengers from succeeding.
It's perceived that Pelosi had a say in this policy (because come on, of course she did), and throwing her weight behind a primary challenger now is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The primary challenger to Ilhan Omar didn't face this blacklisting, despite admitting to using shadowy money to avoid the blacklist publicly (this is where we're referring to taking big money to fight democrats: Ilhan's challenger had a ton of funding). The lack of a very public rebuke was yet another sign of a conservative agenda from the DCCC. Combined with having Kasich, considered a far right loon as little as 4 years ago, speak at their convention two days ago, and the previous DNC head going to work for fox news, it's not a good sign for progressives.
It doesn't help that the person being primaried is one of the senate sponsors of the green new deal, so Pelosi will be getting dragged really hard by people who care a lot about climate change (like GH).
Now, the reason Pelosi probably did this is just standard scummy politics rather than any conservative bias : it's a Kennedy and she wants their backing. Another theory is that if Biden wins, he'll tap Warren for something and Pelosi is trying to ensure that someone has the visibility to run as an effective senate candidate if appointed to the senate.
However, it's definitely anti-progressive bias that made her bold enough to do something so nakedly hypocritical and purely for political gain in such a public manner. Do I think she hates progressives? No. When I say anti-progressive bias, I mean that she doesn't feel any need to take them seriously. Leftist views are very rare in her generation, and AOC+a handful is basically their entire house representation, so it's not that surprising. So far she's not been wrong, but the time will run out eventually due to generational change, and it's a gamble every cycle.
While my political views are very similar, I'm a lot more pragmatic/cynical than GH, in that I will prefer the most competent moderate to the least competent progressive. Skill at politics actually enters into my calculation of politicians quite a bit, and that's where this rubs me the wrong way the most.
The reason I dislike Pelosi's endorsement is because I think it both bad politics and anti-leftist. Schumer endorsing the incumbent in the senate and her endorsing the house was probably something of an attempt to split the wickets, but that doesn't work because Pelosi has the second most powerful position in government, while Schumer's job is barely a ceremonial one. This is the same objection I had to Hillary giving DWS a prominent-sounding but meaningless position in her campaign: the optics of it are terrible, and optics are all that matters to the public.
It's the type of move that would have been very easy to get away with pre-2010s, but now that everyone who cares about politics can get their own news source, they will hear about it.
|
Something I've been wondering: Does "progressive" mean something distinct to "Democrat" to people or is it a rebranding like "GOP/conservative" after "Republican" was toxic for awhile?
|
|
|
On August 21 2020 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Something I've been wondering: Does "progressive" mean something distinct to "Democrat" to people or is it a rebranding like "GOP/conservative" after "Republican" was toxic for awhile?
It's my understanding that those who support the left wing of the Democratic party (Bernie, AOC, etc.) often will distinguish themselves as "progressives" and not "liberals", using the latter term to describe the more moderate, establishment Democrats like Biden and Clinton. So it's an actual distinction (for the left wing, at least) and not just a synonym for liberal, both progressives and liberals fall under the Democratic party, and the left wing would prefer to see the Democratic party be pulled more towards progressive platforms and not "just" liberal ones. That's what my left-wing friends say, anyway.
That being said, my moderate Democratic friends generally don't discern between the two words, so they often see themselves as both liberal and progressive, and tend to use more inclusive rhetoric like "We're all Democrats here", even when there are nuanced differences between Democratic sects. Perhaps the left wing would write it with a capital P - that they are Progressives, while the others are Liberals.
I've seen way too many semantics arguments where Democrats talk past each other because of these kinds of words. I find it far easier and more constructive to speak about specific platforms and ideas, rather than labels (which can come with confusing definitions and tons of baggage).
|
I'm curious what we'd label as the Liberal platform specifically, it feels like I often boil it down to status quo which winds up basically meaning being against things rather than for things in my head.
Like from Progressives I get Medicare for All, serious criminal justice reform (abolishing private-for-profit prison systems and the like) pro-legalized marijuana, the Green New Deal and social justice issues like Trans-rights, etc.
I'm actually not precisely sure what I think Liberals want to do beyond prolong our current capitalist run versions of things? I guess I'm just used to the Republicans being the Backslide party, the Liberal Democrats being the Exactly As Things Are party and the Progressives as the Positive Change party, granted that last one reveals a pretty clear and serious bias towards one of these lol.
|
On August 21 2020 11:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
Something I've been wondering: Does "progressive" mean something distinct to "Democrat" to people or is it a rebranding like "GOP/conservative" after "Republican" was toxic for awhile? It's my understanding that those who support the left wing of the Democratic party (Bernie, AOC, etc.) often will distinguish themselves as "progressives" and not "liberals", using the latter term to describe the more moderate, establishment Democrats like Biden and Clinton. So it's an actual distinction (for the left wing, at least) and not just a synonym for liberal, both progressives and liberals fall under the Democratic party, and the left wing would prefer to see the Democratic party be pulled more towards progressive platforms and not "just" liberal ones. That's what my left-wing friends say, anyway. That being said, my moderate Democratic friends generally don't discern between the two words, so they often see themselves as both liberal and progressive, and tend to use more inclusive rhetoric like "We're all Democrats here", even when there are nuanced differences between Democratic sects. Perhaps the left wing would write it with a capital P - that they are Progressives, while the others are Liberals. I've seen way too many semantics arguments where Democrats talk past each other because of these kinds of words. I find it far easier and more constructive to speak about specific platforms and ideas, rather than labels (which can come with confusing definitions and tons of baggage).
I think this is part of why I insist on not identifying with either at this point. Having once been an active Democrat and then a part of a "progressive" org I realized there is no guiding principle beyond "the status quo but incrementally more palatable for some eventually".
That there really wasn't any meaningful distinction between them in practice, even if there was in rhetoric.
|
I thought Biden's speech was quite good. It was coherent and knew how to marry emotion and policy, though the light vs. dark theme might have been a touch overplayed. I enjoyed it more than the Obamas' speeches which were the other highlights that people seem to concede on. It was a decent way to cap off a fairly awkward convention with more lows than highs.
For today the Curry family segment felt completely unfinished and meaningless, and Bloomberg having that much time to speak versus the other Democratic candidates feels slimy. I didn't even hate Bloomberg's speech that much besides his poor attempts at exasperation, but who really needed 3-4 minutes for his opinion? I'd have much rather heard more from Sanders, Booker, Warren, Yang and Buttigieg or Harris.
|
|
|
It's so ironic the amount of pearl clutching about the "assault" on religious freedoms to persecute gays and abolish abortion, then crickets when open, outright religious persecution comes from their own party against Muslims. Let's be clear that concern for religion for Republicans means Christianity alone, with side concern for Judaism because of Zionist belief that Jesus will return when the Jews rule all Israel. It bothers me that more isn't said about the amount of crazy fundamentalist Christians (pence, devos, pompeo, Barr) in this administration. Even the amount of "faith" being used as a proper noun in the DNC is concerning to me as a non-christian.
|
That is just depressing...
From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point.
|
On August 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:That is just depressing... From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point.
Weak/no opposition and a boatload of denial. Most marginalized groups have large segments that will tell you this is what America has always been and new people are finding themselves drifting uncomfortably close to the out-group and/or can't stomach how Trump makes it almost impossible to ignore.
|
On August 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:That is just depressing... From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point. Got to this point?
A large group never left.
|
How america got to this point?
In the end the internet and social media are to blame. Europe is slowly going into the same direction.
An enormous and very effective propaganda machine that shapes public opinions and perceptions.
It makes people not think for themselves,they play on certain subconscious feelings that many people have and present them with a narrative. 90% of people if not more is vulnerable to this type of influence and its all profesionally done by large organisations.
In the past we had the newspapers,radio and tv but social media and the internet has much more power to shape public opinion. They expose the people to certain narratives almost every second that people are awake.
Right now its still somewhat mixed,as the older generation is less influenced by social media. But the younger generations they have grown up with it and soon they will be the vast majority of people.
This kinda means democracy is at the end of the road. Vieuwpoints that do not fit the interests of the establishment will become more and more marginalized. Its the age of mass indoctrination and influencing,the age of mass "miss" information. And there is no way to stop this process,the whole process protects itself. Its a force of nature.
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
On August 21 2020 19:02 pmh wrote:
How america got to this point?
In the end the internet and social media are to blame. Europe is slowly going into the same direction.
An enormous and very effective propaganda machine that shapes public opinions and perceptions.
It makes people not think for themselves,they play on certain subconscious feelings that many people have and present them with a narrative. 90% of people if not more is vulnerable to this type of influence and its all profesionally done by large organisations.
In the past we had the newspapers,radio and tv but social media and the internet has much more power to shape public opinion. They expose the people to certain narratives almost every second that people are awake.
Right now its still somewhat mixed,as the older generation is less influenced by social media. But the younger generations they have grown up with it and soon they will be the vast majority of people.
This kinda means democracy is at the end of the road. Vieuwpoints that do not fit the interests of the establishment will become more and more marginalized. Its the age of mass indoctrination and influencing,the age of mass "miss" information. And there is no way to stop this process,the whole process protects itself. Its a force of nature.
I’m not so sure I agree in this interpretation of it being a driven propaganda machine in any particular political direction. Although it is of course subject to those attempts as well. There is certainly a lot of really insidious manipulation on these platforms, although politics is secondary to trying to get folks to buy and consume thing.
It feels much more akin to some form of digital mob rule now all the tech has matured and is omnipresent. It’s like giving everyone their own choose your adventure story, except with their own personal variety of reality being the end game.
For all I’m not a fan of manipulative corporate meddling, the rise of anti-vaxxers isn’t really something I can see anyone but a cartoonishly evil corporation like Umbrella having any benefit in pushing. To take one example, or the rather spurious reasoning behind not wearing masks I see floating about.
When I was but a young lad, politics and current affairs was one of my hobbies, most of my peers didn’t really care or read multiple newspapers a day etc. Equally they didn’t talk much politics with me, or actively sought my explanation for something they’d seen on the news. Now everyone in the world has their opinion that they absolutely have to give you, no matter how lacking in detail.
Fast forward to Brexit and social media maturation and fuck me that was a maddening time. While not an expert of renown, I was a reasonably informed layman, what with my general politics consumption and a whole module of my degree on the composition and structure of the EU. ‘The EU will force the UK into an EU army.’ ‘They can’t do that, security is subject to stricter terms than freedom of movement and capital.’ ‘Yeah but the EU will find a way, you know what they’re like.’ ‘No but really they can’t, you need a unanimous vote across all member states legislatures then a referendum in each member state too, one nation, the UK in this instance can veto it’. ‘Where’s it say that?’
There are problems for sure with traditional media acting as gatekeepers for the dissemination of media, I’m not sure what we have now both in terms of increasing polarisation and people obstinately refusing to accept basic realities is in any way preferable though.
If more places were akin to TL and had basic moderation perhaps the sluice valve could be turned a crank or two.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27228 Posts
On August 21 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 15:24 Starlightsun wrote:It's so ironic the amount of pearl clutching about the "assault" on religious freedoms to persecute gays and abolish abortion, then crickets when open, outright religious persecution comes from their own party against Muslims. Let's be clear that concern for religion for Republicans means Christianity alone, with side concern for Judaism because of Zionist belief that Jesus will return when the Jews rule all Israel. It bothers me that more isn't said about the amount of crazy fundamentalist Christians (pence, devos, pompeo, Barr) in this administration. Even the amount of "faith" being used as a proper noun in the DNC is concerning to me as a non-christian. Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:That is just depressing... From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point. It is concerning. I guess the silver lining is we don't any longer have to wonder if it was a dog whistle or not. They are just choosing open racists to lead their party. Pretty hard at this point to pretend they are not.
They’re racists, xenophobes... some I assume are good people.
|
On August 22 2020 02:52 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 21 2020 15:24 Starlightsun wrote:It's so ironic the amount of pearl clutching about the "assault" on religious freedoms to persecute gays and abolish abortion, then crickets when open, outright religious persecution comes from their own party against Muslims. Let's be clear that concern for religion for Republicans means Christianity alone, with side concern for Judaism because of Zionist belief that Jesus will return when the Jews rule all Israel. It bothers me that more isn't said about the amount of crazy fundamentalist Christians (pence, devos, pompeo, Barr) in this administration. Even the amount of "faith" being used as a proper noun in the DNC is concerning to me as a non-christian. On August 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:That is just depressing... From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point. It is concerning. I guess the silver lining is we don't any longer have to wonder if it was a dog whistle or not. They are just choosing open racists to lead their party. Pretty hard at this point to pretend they are not. They’re racists, xenophobes... some I assume are good people.
And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally.
Wait, mustn't read that far haha.
|
On August 22 2020 03:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2020 02:52 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 21 2020 23:56 JimmiC wrote:On August 21 2020 15:24 Starlightsun wrote:It's so ironic the amount of pearl clutching about the "assault" on religious freedoms to persecute gays and abolish abortion, then crickets when open, outright religious persecution comes from their own party against Muslims. Let's be clear that concern for religion for Republicans means Christianity alone, with side concern for Judaism because of Zionist belief that Jesus will return when the Jews rule all Israel. It bothers me that more isn't said about the amount of crazy fundamentalist Christians (pence, devos, pompeo, Barr) in this administration. Even the amount of "faith" being used as a proper noun in the DNC is concerning to me as a non-christian. On August 21 2020 17:34 EnDeR_ wrote:That is just depressing... From that article, apparently she's fine with using the hashtag '#ProudIslamophobe' and she got an endorsement from Trump because of course she did. I genuinely struggle to understand how America got to this point. It is concerning. I guess the silver lining is we don't any longer have to wonder if it was a dog whistle or not. They are just choosing open racists to lead their party. Pretty hard at this point to pretend they are not. They’re racists, xenophobes... some I assume are good people. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. Wait, mustn't read that far haha.
That post makes exactly zero sense to me.
|
On August 21 2020 19:02 pmh wrote:
How america got to this point?
In the end the internet and social media are to blame. Europe is slowly going into the same direction.
An enormous and very effective propaganda machine that shapes public opinions and perceptions.
It makes people not think for themselves,they play on certain subconscious feelings that many people have and present them with a narrative. 90% of people if not more is vulnerable to this type of influence and its all profesionally done by large organisations.
In the past we had the newspapers,radio and tv but social media and the internet has much more power to shape public opinion. They expose the people to certain narratives almost every second that people are awake.
Right now its still somewhat mixed,as the older generation is less influenced by social media. But the younger generations they have grown up with it and soon they will be the vast majority of people.
This kinda means democracy is at the end of the road. Vieuwpoints that do not fit the interests of the establishment will become more and more marginalized. Its the age of mass indoctrination and influencing,the age of mass "miss" information. And there is no way to stop this process,the whole process protects itself. Its a force of nature.
The media pumped up the big reality stars, and played down sensible Republicans like Romney and McCain that compromised and wanted a few conservative victories along with that. They also smattered the normal candidates with accusations about racism and sexism until the population was inured to that kind of attack. Then the DNC decided it was Clinton's turn, and she wasn't well liked. Really, really, really was hated. The same media hype followed the 2015-2016 primary election, where people not named Trump couldn't get press attention (they didn't say as outrageous stuff), and the field was packed with many people wanting to be the solo, non-Trump option.
So now, quite honestly, they stuck themselves with Trump by the massive oversight. People that were willing to send a little awakening bomb to a press that had taken a nap since 2008.
And for all the accusations of no elections and fascism and great power, he's been stopped by the courts, Congress, his own inept hiring and handling of staff, leaks, corrupt and criminal intelligence agencies, his lack of message discipline on twitter, and dozens of other methods. He can't even sign an executive order stopping another for God's sake. I would expect a little recognition of the reality staring most members of this thread in their face, but some combination of anger and ignorance prevents them from easing up on the gas and reconsidering past positions.
Just vote him out in 2020. Hell, if you want to repair the country, let some religious orders of nuns, religious high schools, and religious adoption agencies hold on to a modicum of religious exemptions and freedoms. Look yourself in the mirror and state, "I want war." Go, do it. You've got your reasons, very twisted in my opinion, but it makes attempts to frame it as health care denial, or human rights denial, or something. But you want war, and I'm pretty sure I want to retain what rights I still have left. There will be another Trump if the cultural issues are prosecuted vigorously in the political arena, and it'll probably be a worse version of the current one that actually gets stuff done. I'm very well prepared to lose in 2020, and set up another repudiation of Biden/Harris in the 2022 midterms. Think like the 2010's wave did in Obama and gave us the house for 6 years and the Senate for 8.
That's America at this point. I'm rather sorry that I haven't been able to convince people around here that this is how it stands. Maybe you all will shape up after another Trump-like victory in 2024 or 2028 if not 2020. My gut tells me fixing the dysfunction fastest would mean Trump wins 2020 and people move towards acceptance of losing touch with their own country (and a declining amount of people blame Russia or racist country for why they lost). He certainly doesn't deserve to win on his own merits, neither does Biden, but it would probably be the best in the long term, a 2024-2032 reckoning being more harmful in the long run.
|
Talk about the Dems starting a war is hilarious when the Republicans started it after Obama's election.
You talk about the Dems needing to compromise when McConnel stands up and says the GOP will do everything in their power to make Obama a 1 term president, because a Black man just became President.
But sure, stand high atop your mountain proclaiming Republicans didn't start the war and that the Dems need to compromise, when the Tea Party spend 6 years ensuring nothing got done in Congress because a Democrat was President. (and then fail to work with more moderate parts of their own party because their to extreme even for them under Trump).
Trump is a logical continuation of the GOP dog whistling to appeal to racists. Trump was just the first to discover he didn't need to bother with the whistle and could just be openly racist. Sure the media is partly to blame for putting him in the spotlight but the voting base waiting for an openly racist candidate was there because of the GOP's southern strategy, not the media.
You want to stop the war? look into the mirror and give the Democrats a reason to work with you again, not threaten them with an even bigger racist next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
